By now, most are aware of the massive international intelligence leak that has catapulted the already infamous Julian Assange of wikileaks.org to new heights of notoriety. Releasing a selection of documents gathered through a single leak from Bradley Manning, a 23-year-old intelligence analyst who was formerly working in Iraq, Assange has demonstrated with stunning clarity that he is unafraid to throw rocks at the metaphorical wasps' nest.
Earlier in 2010, wikileaks unveiled a series of war documents that outlined casualties and operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States and its allies. These documents, colloquially known as the War Logs, revealed controversial and troubling information that shook many politicians and military officials into intense rebuttal. Many called the release a significant threat to the lives of serving soldiers, with Robert Gates calling the website "morally guilty for putting lives at risk."
With this release, which Assange has claimed to be only a fraction of the total information obtained from Manning, wikileaks has assured its position in international politics. Officials can shout and rage as much as they wish, but there is no doubt that they are all now fearful of this man and his little website. The power of information, for all forces regardless of orientation, has once again been demonstrated on a grand scale.
The backlash has grown quickly and is becoming fierce. The latest documents have outlined diplomatic relationships in gory detail never before recognized and has dealt significant damage to the interactions of national figures. Many pundits have claimed that much of the information was well understood within the diplomatic community and will not come as a shock to those in the know, but the exposure of the information to the general public will surely bruise egos. Examples of this harsh language include calling the President of Afghanistan "paranoid" and "extremely weak," and the French Prime Minister "thin-skinned" and "authoritarian."
Beyond the concerns of diplomatic insult, the documents have also revealed the depth and breadth of United States espionage, including conscripting diplomats into gathering information on their host countries and local officials. It has revealed a number of interesting and disconcerting points about the international arena, including an assertion that the January 2010 Google hacking incident was a deliberate attack by the Chinese authorities and is part of a wide campaign of computer malfeasance directed at the United States and its allies.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy
I dug into some of the documents in this latest Wikileaks delivery. There was painfully little revealed in them. Assange has embarrassed some world leaders. Generally, the huge egos of these "leaders" prevents them from being seriously bothered by "embarrassment".
2 - Sekhar
Healeyb, Bradely Manning is just a suspect. Even trials have not yet begun. But, it seems you have decided Manning as the main source of the leakage. I doubt whether an ordinary soldier gets access to such highly classified documents. Maybe he is just a scapegoat!
3 - Bryan
Ruvy: The bulk of the cables are mostly embarrassing anecdotes about diplomats, that is true, but there is some hefty data regarding international relations. The revelations about Iran and the Koreas are of particular note.
Sekhar: I would never rule out such a possibility. He may very well be an innocent in a political mess. But as far as we know today, he is recognized as the source of the leak. I apologize for sounding certain, though.
4 - Ruvy
Bryan,
One of my sons will have to serve in the army here (Israel) in a bit. I don't give two hoots about American security sensibilities. Since Americans interfere routinely in our affairs (bullying is a more accurate term), I want to know what is actually going on, and these cables give me better knowledge. I care about Israeli security (selfish of me, I know) and want to see traitors who compromise it hung by the neck. Once your country butts out of our business, I'll be a bit more sympathetic to your concerns. I'll be able to afford to.
5 - Clavos
I doubt whether an ordinary soldier gets access to such highly classified documents.
Depends first on his security clearance, Sekhar, then on his "need to know." An enlisted soldier can conceivably have a very high clearance. As a cryptographer and communications specialist, I had a Top Secret Crypto clearance back in the day. The real criterion, however, is the need to know -- regardless of your clearance AND rank, if you don't have that to fulfill your duties, you don't see the classified info. Even a field officer who lacks the need will not be privy to info for which he might otherwise be cleared.
6 - Bryan
Ruvy: I would need to do much more research on Israeli-American relations, but in case you are unaware, the popular media in the US (and elsewhere, such as the BBC) often portrays the US as a primary (and occasionally sole) ally of Israel. Perhaps the citizenship sees the arrangement much differently.
Also, the issues I was referring to have little to do with American security. About Iran, the surprise was the discovery that most of the neighboring countries despise Ahmadinejad, and the discovery that China would support a reintegration of the Koreas was also a shock.
7 - Ruvy
This doesn't harm you at all, Bryan. It should make you feel enlightened and perhaps more secure.
8 - Sekhar
#5 Clavos, It seems one of the charges framed on Manning was unauthorized access, which means he was not authorized to access the documents. So, there must be some other people helping Manning, who were actually authorized to access the data. Also I cannot understand how Manning was designated as an intelligence analyst at his earliest age (born 1987) and service.
9 - Boeke
Security clearances are handed out like lollipops. Sometimes in place of a raise or promotion. After all, they're free so they don't impact your budget.
10 - Clavos
Sekhar, except for the lifers, most troops are very young -- the average age of infantrymen who served in Vietnam was 22, a year younger than Manning.
11 - Clavos
Security clearances are handed out like lollipops. Sometimes in place of a raise or promotion. (emphasis added)
Hardly. There is no advantage to be gained from having a security clearance.
12 - Dan(Miller)
Leaving aside the content of the specific information released, my concern is with the confidentiality of diplomatic communications in general.
If diplomat A has reasonable confidence that what he tells diplomat B will be held in confidence and therefore not shared other than with those to whom diplomat B is expected to report it, lots more useful information is likely to be provided than if that confidence were absent. Sometimes, such information is very difficult if not impossible to obtain otherwise. Perhaps an analogy can be drawn to the attorney-client privilege, which permits a client to talk freely with his attorney. If privileged communications were to disappear, it would generally be stupid for a client to do so and it would then be impossible for an attorney adequately to defend a client probably guilty of a criminal or civil offense.
The author states,
I believe, however, that what Assange and his organization have done is within the principles that most Americans should recognize as acceptable according to our ideals.
He goes on to observe,
Many have voiced the opinion that the leaks have weakened American efforts abroad and at home and made our country less safe. For this I am dearly thankful. The quest for endless security is, in my estimation, the greatest threat to American ideals at large today.
I disagree with the apparent thesis that all security efforts, with no distinctions drawn among them, are universally a threat to American ideals, at least as I understand them. Some are and some are not. Carrying the author's premise little further, would it better serve the national interest if all diplomatic communications were to be conducted via letters to the editor published daily in the New York Times? How about eliminating all security classifications and requiring the Department of Defense and all other agencies to issue daily press releases detailing all information coming into their possession, from both internal and external sources? These requirements would go far to ensure that accurate information is publicly available, without leaving the dissemination up to the whims of a blogger. However, I don't think either would be in the national interest.
Dan(Miller)
13 - Bryan
Dan: I actually agree with you about diplomacy and the comparison to the attorney-client relationship. However, every leak of important but sensitive information has unfortunate side effects. I can recall to the leaks at Enron, to offer a private industry example, and the resulting layoff and financial devastation of thousands of workers. It is tragic, but I still feel the unraveling of the company was necessary.
Furthermore, this leak was not the result of a loose-lipped diplomat, but rather a single hacker who will be severely dealt with. I think the diplomatic relationships are reparable given proper steps taken to tighten security.
I also agree with you, Dan, that not all security is a threat to American ideals. I have no problem with people locking their cars or doors, for a rather silly example. What I said was that the quest for endless security is the threat, a symptom of the panic inherent in the war on terrorism. The fear of any level of risk encourages people to surrender everything to attain a peace that simply isn't worth what is surrendered.
The one area of partial disagreement I have with what you said is in your concluding sentences. I would actually have no problem with required releases of defense information, even daily, scrubbed to remove crucial locations and names to protect those involved in sensitive operations. It would alleviate the issue of ballooning defense budgets with minimal public accountability, and I would need some serious convincing to believe that it would pose as serious a threat to national security as most would argue for.
14 - Dan(Miller)
Bryan,
I also see no problem with "scrubbed" defense information, provided that the scrubbing prevents the release of sensitive information. We may disagree on what is and what is not sensitive.
You say,
this leak was not the result of a loose-lipped diplomat, but rather a single hacker who will be severely dealt with. I think the diplomatic relationships are reparable given proper steps taken to tighten security.
However, now that the damage has been done, I think that more will be needed than merely tightening security. How can diplomats be assured of the confidentiality they had previously assumed? They are unlikely to accept merely on faith that there is nothing to worry about. Might it be necessary to advise all diplomats in significant detail of the nature of the security tightening? That alone could have bad consequences.
Dan(Miller)
15 - Ruvy
From my point of view, Assange should get a medal of honor, not an indictment. Forcing secret international dealings into the open is the healthiest thing we can have. Little as I like Netanyahu, he was right to say, "if the leaders make these statements publicly there will be a significant change". "When leaders are willing to tell their people the truth it promotes peace." The prime minister said, adding that "peace based on truth has a lasting chance."
Secret banking deals - which have robed Americans and others of $billions - also need to be forced out into the open.
16 - Ruvy
Sorry, that was robbed Americans, not robed them.
It is no big deal if America weakens because of the disclosures Assange has made. America has been on a weakening trajectory since the destruction of the Twin Towers in 2001. This may make the trajectory a bit sharper - especially if banks start to fail out of fear of Assange's disclosures.