Wikileaks Gives Terrorists a List of Targets
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
The irresponsibility of the wikileaking goes on:
In February 2009 the State Department asked all US missions abroad to list all installations whose loss could critically affect US national security.
The list includes pipelines, communication and transport hubs.
Several UK sites are listed, including cable locations, satellite sites and BAE Systems plants.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says this is probably the most controversial document yet from the Wikileaks organisation.
The definition of US national security revealed by the cable is broad and all embracing, he says.
There are obvious pieces of strategic infrastructure like communications hubs, gas pipelines and so on.
The article lists several examples, but I am not going to further disseminate that information. Just suffice to say that it’s a real “how-to” on crippling United States interests around the world.
Meanwhile a few days ago, Legal Insurrection identified Wikileaks’ Likely First Victim.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: I actually have some concerns with governmental secretiveness at times — especially when the secretiveness appears motivated by a desire to hide embarrassing and/or illegal activity by governmental officials. I have discussed these concerns before, in posts like this one.
But I cannot for the life of me imagine how anyone could justify leaking information like this. It is immoral. It is almost certainly illegal. This cannot be justified by a mere desire for openness. It is the kind of action undertaken by our enemies. Pure and simple.
Since Assange is now claiming to have a “doomday” file to release if punished, so much for the claim that this is about transparency.
Treacher links to the SNL skit ridiculed Assange.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 6:53 amSo much for free speech.
The Emperor (fa369b) — 12/6/2010 @ 7:02 amthe emperor
i don’t follow…
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/6/2010 @ 7:14 am“Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Jack Wagon (73b6a8) — 12/6/2010 @ 7:16 amHe’s a whistleblower!
Gerald A (9ef895) — 12/6/2010 @ 7:18 amThe doomsday file is about covering his butt.
This doc is where he crosses a line that is going to get him jailed. Probably not a lot of new info in there. Probably the bad guys have their own list, but the whole point of loose lips sink ships is to make it hard/dangerous for the bad guys to get the information and to not let slip any details that they may have overlooked.
Too bad. It was fun watching the guy piss everyone off and spoil the “great game” picnic. Now “they” will be justified in squashing him.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/6/2010 @ 7:32 amGo Julian go
Let it bleed,
They deserve it.
They’re telling
Lies
And ruining
Lives
Thought they
Were Safe
Now their shit’s
In the open
For everyone to see.
Go Julian go
4Truth (0692b1) — 12/6/2010 @ 7:52 amYou redeem the human race
WikiLeaks shows the way
To a better world
That we’ll build
On their ashes and bones.
Go Julian go
Let it bleed,
They deserve it.
They’re telling
Lies
And ruining
Lives
Thought they
Were Safe
Now their crap’s
In the open
For everyone to see.
Go Julian go
4Truth (0692b1) — 12/6/2010 @ 7:53 amRedeem the human race
WikiLeaks shows the way
To a better world
That we’ll build
On their ashes and bones.
FIRE NEVER MELTED STEEL! ZOMFG YOU ZIONAZIS LUV THE JOOOOOOS
JD (109425) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:01 amIt is becoming clear that Wikileaks is waging war against the United States. Oddly, that does not require being a state actor and never has — witness Aaron Burr’s treason trial.
Yes, for sure Assange is not a US Citizen and therefore not subject to treason laws, but I don’t think a citizen hosting a mirror or otherwise giving Assange aid or comfort would be a good idea going forward.
Kevin M (298030) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:06 amFirst off: 4Truth’s comment sound’s just as dumb as you’d expect from someone with a handle like “4Truth”. At least try to pretend you’re not a closet fascist, dude – building a better world on their ashes and bones? Really?
Second: I agree with Patterico’s remark in his update – this is the exact sort of thing that Assange had no business leaking if he had any shred of awareness and/or conscience. But at the same time, there are other elements of the leak that the government should have no business hiding in the first place, things of a merely embarrassing or political nature. If the purpose of diplomacy were solely to avoid war, then any leaking of diplomatic information would most likely warrant repercussion. But, as I said on the other Wikileaks thread:
“The purpose of diplomacy is not solely to avoid war, though, is it? There are many other functions of diplomacy – facilitation of trade, dialogue re: human rights/the environment, development… all these things are discussed between diplomats. How much should be off the record, in these manners? And how can we expect to hold unelected diplomats accountable, and ensure that they act only in the public interest, without some transparency as to the content of their dialogue? To unilaterally condemn leaks like this – which are, at some level, our only means of insight into the actions of our representatives in the realm of foreign policy – gives too much power to an unelected sub-branch of an already overpowered Executive.
Again: I admit that information regarding national security is another matter – but like I said before, I agree with EdWood that there’s a danger in allowing our government to put over a bag over our heads whenever it claims that something is a matter of national security. So I don’t know what to do there, exactly.”
“Here”, being the leak as a whole – but insofar as Assange saw fit to include a list of critical and vulnerable US targets in his little data-wad – you know, just in case there might be someone who was interested in such things – he should be held to account.
Leviticus (cfa844) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:09 amthe emperor
i don’t follow…
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 12/6/2010 @ 7:14 am
My point is that some people are simply abusing free speech.. And nothing can be done about it.
The Emperor (fa369b) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:12 am“In the United States the Justice Department has indicated it is considering criminal charges against WikiLeaks. However, the Justice Department has not specifically indicated what law these charges would stem from. Legal scholars have stated that charges under the Espionage Act could be possible, but such a move has been characterized as “difficult” by former prosecutors because of First Amendment rights in the United States.“
Leviticus, I don’t think I have seen any criticism of Wikilinks that does not acknowledge the legitimacy of “leaks” regarding real misconduct.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:18 amThere are many now trashing
Wikileaks’ alleged wrongdoing
Those are the same who just yesterday
Were cheerleaders for the bushie way
And now they see that it’s coming
What? – The day of reckoning!
Julian, bring the New Colossus down,
4Truth (0692b1) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:18 amLet run deep the tears of the clown.
A new world is there for us to see
Soon the truth will set us free.
Soon the truth will set us free.
Comment by 4Truth — 12/6/2010 @ 8:18 am
I think a ban will set you free.
The Emperor (fa369b) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:25 amrofl, given your own history The Emperor, I found that hilarious.
True.
But hilarious.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:26 am“Leviticus, I don’t think I have seen any criticism of Wikilinks that does not acknowledge the legitimacy of “leaks” regarding real misconduct.”
– SPQR
Well… then consider my remarks a reiteration, because it’s very important to remember that. And it’s worth questioning what sorts of misconduct we allow from our diplomats in the name of national security, and how often we allow such misconduct, and how we’re supposed to find out about the illegitimate actions of our diplomats without leaks, since there doesn’t seem to be another reliable accountability/transparency mechanism.
Leviticus (cf8ec3) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:28 amLeviticus, we unfortunately are limited to the more public results.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:31 amResponding to patterico’s update.
i think we can have too many secrets, yes. i mean they will stamp copies of the NYT as classified. and i have long said that every intelligence law has to be interpreted to only protect actual secrets.
But i think this wikileaks stuff seems way over the line and not just this latest one.
which means we are in close agreement, but not identical.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:42 am“but I don’t think a citizen hosting a mirror or otherwise giving Assange aid or comfort would be a good idea going forward.”
This is exactly why I never have liked the “war on terror”. All ya gotta do to arrest anyone you want is to just tweak that definition of “terrorist” a little and then arrest all those people “aiding and comforting” the newly minted “terrorist”.
Your wording gives me the creeps Kevin M. mostly because I bet there are people with power thinking exactly what you said above.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/6/2010 @ 8:46 amWikileaks is undoubtedly leaking too much. But I do think that the political class in this country has undermined other oversight mechanisms to the point where wikileaks is necessary.
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/6/2010 @ 9:22 amPatterico: I would have a lot more sympathy for the people running Wikileaks if they had filtered the documents and distinguished between releasing stuff which is merely embarassing to those who are in power, or which is evidence that the law is being violated by those who have power (on the one hand), and releasing stuff like this, or the identity of informants, or the location of a mountain escape route of Iran,e tc.
aphrael (7a8968) — 12/6/2010 @ 9:49 amAaron, the fact that nothing in these documents were real revelations of misconduct really confirms that there isn’t anything that the “political class” is succeeding in hiding from us.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 9:52 amSomeone reminded me, actually Sara2pal, that the Wikileaks scenario, is like the plot of one of
narciso (6075d0) — 12/6/2010 @ 9:53 amDan Brown’s lesser known novels, Digital Fortress, the particulars are different, but one wonders if Assange was inspired by this
SPQR: yeah. My sense from the stories I’ve seen based on wikileaks is that there’s nothing particularly new there – it’s alls tuff that people who were paying attention to international relations already kind of expected.
That said, having certain things semi-officially confirmed is embarassing: it’s far better that it remain ambiguous what Pakistan is authorizing us to do, for example.
aphrael (7a8968) — 12/6/2010 @ 9:55 amSo what are the leaks that revealed misconduct?
Gerald A (9ef895) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:07 amEd–
Art III, Sec 3 of the US Constitution says:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
And one would assume that “Enemies” are those “levying War”. Nowhere does it say that the actors must be states or state-sponsored. Wikileaks actions have moved beyond a desire for openness to a desire to harm the United States. This last release regarding national security sites is indefensible from an openness perspective — it is pure and simple hostile action. It clearly falls within the scope of “levying war.”
Question: At what point would you think that Wikileaks had crossed the line? Releasing crypto codes (they may have some)? Releasing names of undercover agents in foreign countries? Publishing nuclear release codes? Or is it all “free speech” to you?
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:25 amaphrael, what justification do you have for publishing lists of US security and infrastructure sites? Who could that possibly benefit, other than the bad guys?
Kevin M (73dcc9) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:27 amKevin M., I missed the part where aphrael “justified” that. Could you point it out?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:30 amIt sounds like Leviticus has issues with the classification system, and is alright wi ignoring the law to achieve this goal of more transparency. Why not work to change existing laws and regulations first?
JD (7f1877) — 12/6/2010 @ 10:40 amIt’s not that I have issues with the classification system so much as I sense the lack of an effective accountability mechanism in the foreign service/diplomatic sector. If these people are the representatives of the US to the rest of the world, I would like to have some say in how they’re selected, how the conduct themselves, etc. Or at the very least, some knowledge of same (in the absence of an actual “say”, which is not my constitutional prerogative), so that I can voice my displeasure to the person responsible for them – the President – and/or hold him to account in their stead (which most certainly is).
Leviticus (7c7d88) — 12/6/2010 @ 11:30 amKevin
You can’t charge ASSange with treason, because treason is a betrayal of your country. ASSange is not an american.
That being said, on one hand we are talking about speech only.
On the other hand, how is it that if you take our secrets and hand them to the russians it is espionage, but if you put them on the front page of the NYT it is just speech?
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/6/2010 @ 12:33 pmKevin M- See my previous post. If Assange and Wikileaks have released a list of potential targets for bad guys that was actually a classified list then there should be consequences. But that doesn’t necessarily make him a terrorist and it certainly doesn’t make people mirroring the site into traitors or terrorists.
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/6/2010 @ 12:53 pmThere are a lot of people out there right now who WANT Assange to be labeled a terrorist so that they can use him as a pretext to shut up Wikileaks and any other similar kind of website that might release embarrassing or damning “classified” information.
Traitor and terrorist are words that need to be used carefully. A lot of people aren’t being careful with those words or that “war on terror” “providing aid and comfort” phrasing.
Kevin M – I don’t believe I justified that.
What I said was that I see a distinction in kind between publishing things which merely embarass those in power (say, some classified document whose only contents were proof that Pres. Obama is having an affair with a rent boy) or which demonstrate clearly illegal acts on the part of the government (say, classified documents which showed that President Obama had had tea party activists tortured until they recanted their politics) on the one hand, and documents which reveal information the publication of which interferes with the government’s ability to do its job (say, something which reveals the identity of informants or the location of strategic infrastructure).
I do not believe Mr. Assange has any responsibility to the United States, a country of which he is not a citizen and in which he is not a resident. But I wish that he had had the discretion to walk through the documents he was given and publish only the former and not the latter.
aphrael (7a8968) — 12/6/2010 @ 12:55 pmWhat is the actual wrongdoing that wikileaks is purported to has disclosed?
JD (eb5afc) — 12/6/2010 @ 1:01 pmJD: I’m not aware of any. On the other hand, there are 250,000 documents. I doubt anyone has read them all yet. I certainly haven’t.
aphrael (7a8968) — 12/6/2010 @ 1:12 pmAnd so maybe it would turn out that if Mr. Assange had done the kind of filtering I want him to do, nothing would have been published. I don’t know. What I *do* know is that he hasn’t done the filtering I want him to do.
Now: he has no duty, legally, to do so, and it’s even arguable that as a non-citizen who has no responsibilities to the US he has no duty morally to do so. Which leaves me in the awkward position of being upset with him because he didn’t do the US a favor.
And yet: as a member of modern international society, it seems to me that good behavior requires that you extend that particular courtesy to any state. Or, at the very least, to any state which is compliant with liberal democratic norms.
aphrael (7a8968) — 12/6/2010 @ 1:15 pmIt also seems that moral duty – regardless of national affiliations – would require Assange to refrain from publishing any information that might lead to a loss of human life.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 12/6/2010 @ 1:29 pmIt seems that Mr Julian operates under a different set of morals.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/6/2010 @ 1:38 pmSPQR: my point is not that these specific leaks had a good effects as well as the obvious bad. My point is that the impetus for wikileaks to exist and target the U.S. would not exist if the U.S. did not.
The biggest thing these cables reveal (so far
— only a small percentage have yet been publically revealed) is overclassification. A lot of what’s in these cables has no real need to be classified.
But there are a few bits which should be brought to light, such as significant documentation of corruption in our sponsored Afghan government.
JD: It’s hard for me to accept “change the laws” when we know that the government is not itself obeying the law. (See, for instance, the FISA warrantless wiretapping and of course, when law suits were used to attack this, the retroactive immunity for telecoms violating the law to facilitate this.) FOIA is in theory fairly wide ranging, but in practice often stonewalled. There’s no strong reason to believe it is always obeyed, and some good reasons to believe it is not.
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:13 pmWow. That poetry is truly awful. Wow. Pedestrian vocabulary. Thematically inconsequential. Some of it doesn’t even rhyme, either.
Birdbath (8501d4) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:13 pmOops. Previous comment should read “if the U.S. did not conceal evidence of wrongdoing in addition to what is rightfully concealed.”
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:14 pmWarrantless wiretapping might be one of the most tiresome memes pushed by the leftists.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:18 pmJD
And they gave Livingstone a pass on those Fibbie files
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:36 pmTheir outrage is … selective.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:39 pmYes they are all hot and bothered over Stanley corp but no Livingstone I presume:
http://epic.org/privacy/travel/pass/
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:49 pmJD: Tiresome? That’s not substantive. That’s “I don’t wanna talk about it.”
It gets pushed a lot because it’s one of the few recent cases in which there is extremely solid evidence of governmental law-breaking. Yet there was clearly enough political will to change the law, as we can see by the retroactive immunity years later.
Sometimes what the government wants conflicts with the law. That doesn’t mean that the government should go outside the law.
It’s true that my policy preferences are against most of the warrantless wiretapping program (I can see the need for some expansion of what was legal), but my outrage is for purposeful violation, rather than attempting to amend the law.
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/6/2010 @ 2:59 pmAaron
Its interesting the concept of an democracy being subjected to an oligarchial(sp?) governent.
It suggests a caste system that some believe in (especially fortuitously when it is expedient to do so) a system that has extra ordinary poers over the maases
I am always reminded that 2 plus million fedeal workers are notsuper citizens like in ancient Rome but ordinary people more or less inclined to do their job faithfully and reasonably morally
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/6/2010 @ 3:12 pmAaron – they weren’t wiretaps, in the classic definition of the word, and there are legitimate disagreements with your stated position, that you and yours have dismissed out of hand for years. Maybe you are not one of those leftists that cynically claimed faux outrage, but people caterwalling about wiretapping and giving the impression that Bush and Rove were listening in on normal conversations is laughable. Hopefully, you are the exception. The need to give immunity to the telecoms was purely a result of the partisans who demanded criminal prosecution for cooperating with a national security endeavo. Attempts to criminalize these actions forced the government to protect those that they had sought assistance from, in good faith.
JD (306f5d) — 12/6/2010 @ 3:41 pmBy the way, Aaron. You do not get to define what I mean. What you claimed I meant by tiresome is not at all the case. I will attempt to keep from doing same to you, but were I to do so, I would note that people that caterwaul about “warrantless wiretapping” are similar to those that claim to have seen a bogeyman under their bed, and those that think KKKarl Rove is some evi genius plotting the destructon of th US of A.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/6/2010 @ 4:02 pmSounds like the state department led by Clinton ‘the weasel’ is willing to have thousands killed to get back at O’Dumbo for beating her. Most if not all of the latest leaks are from the state department.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 12/6/2010 @ 4:06 pmAaron and JD
I guess wiretapping and docuent leaks -these important issues are coming down to content – what was actually obtained and released
I think its interesting that Palins email hacking was not only politically otivated but actually executed – yet the investigation began and ended with one person
Its even more interesting that the deliberate tapping of Newt and several high ranking public officials, and a congressman covered it up and actually used the information yet no charges
And then we have the wiretappings to prevent 3,000 citizens and half a million soldiers lives ended, ruined or disrupted by terrorism and we complain that the non invasive non intrusive gathering of evidence unbeknown to the “victim” is a dire threat to our constitutional rights which have been adjudicated since before the ink was dry in 1776 ad naseum
There is no constitutional right to use a phone – people forget about that
EricPWJohnson (d84fb0) — 12/6/2010 @ 4:14 pmDo you think that the analysts who clearly overstepped the guidelines should be held accountable in the normal scheme of good management?
The wikileaks incident is inexcusable for a lot of reasons. Who prints them is another issue.
One In Novak’s book “Prince of Darkness” he pointed out where he was involved with reporting Top Secret war plans in which Carter was willing to cede portions of Europe if there were a war (Been a couple of years since I read the book but that was the gist of it). His reporting caused the government to change its plans as a result.
Should the NY Times report what is included? No opinion – just a general question.
Once the cables were leaked there was not a whole lot that could be done to stop them from being distributed. I can say that the DoD and other Federal agencies are getting quite a bit of very specific guidance/directions to try to stop something like this from happening again.
vor2 (a87a4e) — 12/6/2010 @ 4:45 pmThis fool has angered some really bad people including the Russian Mafia with his antics. I would not want to be in his shoes.
Duke Nukem (91a71d) — 12/6/2010 @ 4:56 pmDuke
Hey, i heard you have your game finally coming out like next year. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (b8e056) — 12/6/2010 @ 5:09 pmJD: I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth, and I can see why you felt affronted. But I really don’t know how to interpret “tiresome” other than “this subject is dull and boring, I’m tired of talking about it, and I don’t want to now”. What do you mean by it?
The retroactive immunity was not because there were “calls” for prosecution, but because there was an actual lawsuit on. I see no need to protect those who illegally cooperate with illegal government actions, even when they are described as national security endeavors.
I dispute your characterization of the suit as an attempt to criminalize the action. It was an attempt to determine in court whether the actions were legal, according to existing law.
You are right that there’s some dispute over whether the actions taken were in fact illegal, but even painted in the best light for the government and AT&T, there is serious doubt whether there was. That, to my mind, makes the suit is utterly appropriate.
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/6/2010 @ 5:14 pmI guess it is more convenient to not read what I wrote. If you think that even in the best light, there are still doubts as to whether or not what the gov and AT&T did was criminal, than you are quite invested in one side.
JD (eb5afc) — 12/6/2010 @ 5:27 pmwould require Assange to refrain from publishing any information that might lead to a loss of human life.
I think one can make a reasonable assumtion that his previous leak put many informant’s lives at great risk, if they haven’t already been killed. At the very least, it will give any future potential informants great pause, as they’ll forever be looking behind their backs. Intelligence operations are critically supported by their networks of informants, and this is a severe blow to our operations that make take years to recover. However, that’s part and parcel of Assange’s entire POV – he’s just another hacker/anarchist, playing to his fanbase across the world who applaud his various nefarious bad boy behaviors. He has no other point to his actions other than his own self – glorification, and towards that end we should seek to eliminate him from the face of the earth with all speed. Screw deportation and a subsequent trial – actions such as these should carry punitive consequences.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/6/2010 @ 6:39 pmBTW, I couldn’t even sit through his 60 – minutes segment last night; what a vainglorious prick he presents.
Dmac (498ece) — 12/6/2010 @ 6:41 pmLet the statists howl.
Assange is a hero to liberty-loving people everywhere.
jt (ec00fe) — 12/7/2010 @ 4:06 amExcept he was staked by Soros’s OSI, just as with CAP, which includes Mort Halperin, who legitimated
narciso (6075d0) — 12/7/2010 @ 5:33 amAgee’s work for the DGI;
Actually no, look at his defenders, this fits just as well in the Polanski thread;
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
narciso (6075d0) — 12/7/2010 @ 6:24 am