|
2010-08-31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two American civilians interviewed in recent weeks by the Army's criminal division said that investigators were focusing in part on a group of friends who know Pfc. Bradley Manning, a leading suspect in the leak. Investigators, the civilians said, apparently believe that the friends, who include students from M.I.T. and Boston University, might have connections to WikiLeaks. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Eric Schmitt, David Sanger |
| |
Title: |
Reporter |
| |
Agency(ies): |
New York Times |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/oZd0p |
|
|
2010-07-31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-07-31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They [agents] asked if Bradley used his computer, but he hasn't since he left. It hasn't been plugged in since. It is with all his stuff in his bedroom.'
[...]
'They were in plain clothes and we think they had travelled from the American Embassy in London. They had a list of questions to ask. They wanted to build up a picture of Bradley's background.
[...]
'They went to him [Brian], then they went to his daughter, then they came here. But Susan was not expecting them.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Sharon Staples |
| |
Title: |
Bradley Manning's aunt |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Gwucc |
|
Title: |
FBI question WikiLeaks mother at Welsh home: Agents interrogate 'distressed' woman, then search her son's bedroom |
|
Author: |
Andy Whelan, Sharon Churcher |
|
Title: |
Reporter |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Daily Mail Online |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Example attack and counter-attack in the 'War on WikiKeaks' http://bit.ly/9EWZ32 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Wired says we are in disrepair.Untrue-upgrading infrastructure to deal with growth.You can help: http://bit.ly/cpxJWC |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Wired's war on WikiLeaks continues. See comment by 'mpineiro' http://bit.ly/aZm4US |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leaking of classified information is against the law, cannot be tolerated, and will, when proven, lead to the prosecution of those found to be engaged in such activity. Revealing unclassified, but sensitive, pre-decisional, or otherwise restricted information is also prohibited unless specifically authorized.
Current DoD policy, outlined by Directive 5122.05, 'Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs,' (attached) states that the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs is the sole release authority for official DoD information to news media in Washington, and that all media activities must be coordinated through appropriate public affairs channels. This policy is, all to often ignored. Accordingly, we must enhance our internal coordination mechanisms to ensure that Department officials are aware of the most current departmental and inter-agency information and perspective on the topic at hand when they engage the media. We need to ensure that, as they do so, we avoid misunderstandings and miscommunications caused by insufficient situational awareness.
Accordingly, prior to interviews or any other means of media and public engagement with possible national or international implications, all component leaders or their public affairs officers must notify OSD Public Affairs which, in turn and as appropriate, will ensure that senior Department officials with the relevant overall knowledge and situational awareness have been consulted. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gates |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of Defense |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
Subject: Interaction with the Media |
|
Author: |
Robert Gates |
|
Title: |
Secretary of Defense |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of Defense |
|
Audience: |
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretaries of Defense, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense Director, Administration and Management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Busy with upgrades, legal issues, releases, fundraising, etc. Help us with opportunistic critics at this time. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets upcoming release needs very large US banner print&drop. experience? contact projectk@sunshinepress.org |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Why we need WikiLeaks: 98 to 1 bias in the US media on torture http://bit.ly/cyeswU |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks smear campaign continues, now 8 wholly fabricated articles in Cryptome http://bit.ly/af1c6o |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Interestingly, the Cryptome fabrications try to undermine cashflow and leadership. Don't let them http://bit.ly/dv6i0G |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets @aigarius actually, reader comments are very important. Only disabled now due to infrastructure upgrades. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/07/wikileaks-iphone-incidents-show-that-us-needs-shield-law182.html |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks incident shows US needs stronger shield laws | PBS http://to.pbs.org/avrvBB |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks vs. Libel Law professor at EU Parliament http://bit.ly/93CKoS |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets (bizarre) Russian agents and WIKILEAKS prefer the ASUS eee 1005HA-P netbook: http://bit.ly/dgbldv |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Greenwald on NYT torture turnaround http://bit.ly/aRGePW |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Julian Assange wins 2010 Sam Adams Award http://bit.ly/bpKa0i |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks v. Tony Blair for the Liberty Medal. Who is the real upholder of US founding values? http://bit.ly/bpFsfI |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets An often misled, but nonetheless, extremely interesting, view of the Manning case http://bit.ly/dhdWnS |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Charge Sheet for Pfc. Bradley Manning dated July 5, 2010 |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort Myer |
|
Concerning: |
"Bradley Manning Charge Sheet July 5 2010, United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Private Manning charged with disclosing iraq-slaughter video. Trigger happy Apache crew remain uncharged. More shortly. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Intel analyst to be charged over iraq-slaughter video: http://bradleymanning.org/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Save Private Manning: http://bradleymanning.org/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Charge sheet now in HTML http://bit.ly/9MiFZZ the video: http://collateralmurder.com/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Save Bradley Manning facebook group: http://bit.ly/dxEAma |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets If the charges against Manning are true, he will be the Daniel Ellsberg of our times. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One agent that the defense requested as a witness on Dec. 2, 2011 for Bradley Manning's Article 32 Pretrial Hearing was on the prosecution's original government witness list dated Jul 7, 2010. 'The defense has requested the attendance of XXXXXXXXXX in order to provide the Investigating Officer with testimony concerning the joint investigations being conducted by both the Department of State and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Notable XXXXXXXXXX was on the original government's witness list filed on 7 July 2010. According to the government's memo dated 7 December 2011, the other agents 'XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX can provide the needed testimony.' Their testimony, however, will in large part be hearsay evidence about what other agents have done on the case and what witnesses have told these other case agents... |
| |
Name(s:) |
David Coombs |
| |
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
Memorandum for Artice 32 Investigating Officer, XXXXXXXXXX, 150th Judge Advocate General Detachment, legal Support Organization, MG Albert C. Lieber USAR Center, 6901 Telegraph Road, Alexandria, Virginia 22310 |
|
Author: |
David Coombs |
|
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Bradley Manning charges analysis http://bit.ly/caPLXe |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Well blowout memo haunts Calgary energy firm http://bit.ly/aMQf2J |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Neocon rag Weekly Standard, pens article 'Open society and its enemies: WikiLeaks'. This is not a joke. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Charging Wikileaks Source: The Nail in the Coffin of Whistleblowers | GAP http://bit.ly/d9JyCt |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Bradley Manning: American Patriot | Antiwar http://bit.ly/d0Tvnr |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Disinformation campaign against WL is heating up. Demand full primary sources. Check bias. Riposte. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks at http://TCIJ.ORG/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets IMMI support resolution passed this afternoon by EU Parliament; details tomorrow at http://bit.ly/cy0RX8 http://immi.is/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: To pursue another aspect of the memo and your comments today, which is the unauthorized release of classified information, charges were filed this week against Private Manning in the so-called WikiLeaks case. How significant a breach of national security do you view that? And given that a young soldier is alleged to have had relatively free access to information, was able to download it and take it out of his headquarters, are you ordering any kind of review of security clearance processes, computer security, or any other steps that are necessary?
SEC. GATES: Well, first of all, Thom, I don't know the seriousness of the breach. I'm not familiar with the investigation that took place, and so would basically have to say I defer to the Army in terms of the -- of the specific case. In some respects, what this illustrates is the incredible amount of trust we place in even our most junior men and women in the uniform. And I would be loath to change that because of a few examples, because there are a few bad apples. We have over 2 million men and women in uniform, and I believe we should always err on the side of trusting them because virtually all of them -- not 100 percent, but nearly 100 percent -- give us reasons every single day to continue trusting them. So, no, I haven't ordered a review. If the results of the investigation suggest that might be necessary, then we'll take a look at it at the time. But my instinct is to take these on a case-by-case basis. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gates |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of Defense |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/oXN5a |
|
|
QUESTION: May I also follow up very briefly on the media memo? Because, again, in it you say, sir, any means of media and public engagement -- any means -- with possible national or international implications. That is perhaps, I think, the broadest, by any measure, bounding or restriction: any means of public engagement. Could you explain, do troops and commanders and people in the United States military give up -- I'm quite serious -- their right of free speech, their right to speak freely? Does any public engagement they have, which is what your words say, now have to be screened? Do they -- what rights of free speech does a person in the United States military have?
SEC. GATES: Let me ask the chairman --
ADM. MULLEN: From my perspective, this isn't at all about the First Amendment. It's very much about what the secretary laid out in terms of coordination and synchronization and the discipline. It is not in any way, shape or form meant to preclude the -- the proper engagement with the press. And all of us in the military understand that being in the military, we follow certain guidelines. And this is -- this is to actually, in great part, emphasize guidance that has been out there for an extensive period of time but we've just -- we just walked away from. And so I think in light of what's -- certainly in light of what's happened recently -- but it isn't just the Rolling Stone piece; it was -- would just reaffirm what the secretary said. It's something he and I have been talking about for longer than that, the need to, in fact, ensure that we're coordinated, synchronized, and that -- and that we do tell our story. In my engagement with the military since the Rolling Stone article, it's important that, one, we don't see the press as the enemy, and I've said that; two, that we don't overreact here; and, three, that we do tell our story. And so it's -- and it is a -- it is a challenge today because of the 24-hour news cycle, because of the pace. We understand that -- and that in engaging the press and the media we have to do it from the position in which we're qualified to do that, very specifically.
QUESTION: Admiral Mullen, don't mean to take too much time, but 'any engagement' -- are you in fact saying that a trooper in the field, before he e-mails, has a telephone conversation, posts something on his Facebook page, Twitters, has any public engagement with the media, it must be cleared by this building?
ADM. MULLEN: If I were to use the trooper in the field -- who is very specifically, let's say, with an embed -- I think the rules with respect to that embed should be understood going in, and then just follow those rules very specifically, as an example... |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mike Mullen |
| |
Title: |
Chair |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/oXN5a |
|
Title: |
Subject: Interaction with the Media |
|
Author: |
Robert Gates |
|
Title: |
Secretary of Defense |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of Defense |
|
Audience: |
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Secretaries of the Military Departments, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Under Secretaries of Defense, Commanders of the Combatant Commands, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense Director, Administration and Management |
|
|
Title: |
Defense Department Media Access policy |
|
Author: |
Robert Gates, Mike Mullen |
|
Title: |
Secretary of Defense, Chair |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks (Schmitt) heute 12:00 bei der Netzwerk Recherche Jahreskonferenz http://bit.ly/cjJq9U |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks editor slams libel law professor over #trafigura #bbc http://bit.ly/9oYNfh |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks will NOT be abandoned. Don't listen to disinfo being spread! We'll issue clarifications soon. Should've done earlier. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kemkes asked Graham about a box containing DVDs she had collected on 7/12/09, including one disc labeled 'secret.' He proceeded to ask about whether she had searched and inventoried other items beyond digital media? She said she had not. He asked whether she knew that Manning might have gender identity disorder, and she said in fact she had. Kemkes asked whether Graham has discovered any evidence about this issue when collecting evidence for the case. She could not recall. He asked if she had found anything like that, including medical pamphlets or articles printed from the Internet. She could not recall. Kemkes asked about a specific medical pamphlet from Canada that reviewed options for dealing with gender identity disorder, including changing one's dress, hormone therapy, facial surgery, and gender reassignment. Graham again could not recall.
At this point the prosecution objected, asking for the relevance of the questioning. The objection was overruled.
Upon further questioning, Graham admitted that she had seen 'several things about homosexuality' when collecting evidence from Manning's CHU. Kemkes asked what Graham had done with these things. Graham replied 'I left it in his room.' Kemkes now asked a few incredulous questions, asking how often she had encountered similar situations where soldiers had copies of Flight Into Hyper-masculinity. Almanza admonished Kemkes, urging him to 'try to focus on the thoroughness of the investigation.'
Asked again what she did with evidence about Manning's sexuality, Graham said she 'set it to the side.' She then said plainly that 'we already knew before we arrived' that Manning was a homosexual. She added, awkwardly, 'I don't know if the proper term is transvestite.' [NB: based on the context, I don't believe Graham was confused about the difference between a transvestite and a homosexual. Rather, I believe she was certain Manning was gay but uncertain whether other factors might also make him a transvestite. She might also have been searching for the word 'transgender.'] |
| |
Name(s:) |
Rainey Reitman |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Bradley Manning Support Network |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/VTLzn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Day 2 of Bradley Manning's pre-trial hearing: In-depth notes from the Art. 32 courtroom |
|
Author: |
Rainey Reitman |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Bradley Manning Support Network |
|
Concerning: |
"United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since 12 July 2010, the case has been on Government requested excludable delay under R.C.M. 707(c). This delay request by the Government was approved by the court-martial convening authority. |
| |
Name(s:) |
David Coombs |
| |
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/xi6aI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets 'A real free press for the first time in history' http://bit.ly/bkG6H1 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks founder reflects on media failures http://bit.ly/ddy2h0 http://colleteralmurder.com/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets World history before our eyes: http://bit.ly/deesud |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Julian Assange & the WikiLeaks agenda http://bit.ly/cP9lxQ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Wir zahlen den Wikileaks-Leuten kein Gehalt | Freitag http://bit.ly/cOm2f0 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Glenn Greenwald explores Manning case http://bit.ly/ahzvpx |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets The covert smear campaign against WikiLeaks: what you need to know http://bit.ly/briilO |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets FOX news take on the Bradley Manning espionage case http://bit.ly/cp5cL9 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets MSNBC take on the Manning case now online http://bit.ly/deVauR |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Why WikiLeaks needs your help http://bit.ly/avcKYh http://bit.ly/dv6i0G |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Should newspapers publish full interview transcripts on-line? http://bit.ly/bgqETp |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks: Journalism should be more like a science http://bit.ly/9ODIpR |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/20/11 (by an anonymous journalist, ed. by Alexa O'Brien) |
|
Author: |
Alexa O'Brien |
|
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
"Adrian Lamo, Lamo Chat logs |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/17/11 |
|
Author: |
Alexa O'Brien |
|
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
"Adrian Lamo, Lamo Chat Logs |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Media morons: a list of some of the people repeating the wholly fabricated 'wikileaks insider' junk http://bit.ly/adE9Yr |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks damns modern media: Get Accurate, or Get Out: http://bit.ly/9rqxXZ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Media paper shows Washington Post, NYTimes fell for military lies over Collateral Murder http://www.cnneffect.net/report |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets NSA fabricated records led to Vietnam war | NYT http://nyti.ms/cmihuB |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Q: Iraq, Vietnam other wars were started by craven, inaccurate media. So what is the avg kill count per journalist? |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets YOU can write to this US political prisoner held in a Kuwaiti jail. Keep their spirits up! http://bit.ly/5ODBA |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets YOU can write to this US political prisoner held in a Kuwaiti jail, 22 year old Bradley Manning http://bradleymanning.org/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets People in Bangkock say that WikiLeaks is still blocked in Thailand. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Save NSA whistleblower, Thomas Drake http://bit.ly/bby3Ag |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets RT manop: @wikileaks I want to confirm that as of now (16 July 2010 - 1:05 am). Wikileaks is still blocked in Thailand |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eric Corley, publisher of 2600 Magazine and organizer of The Next HOPE conference in midtown Manhattan, said five Homeland Security agents appeared at the conference a day before WikiLeaks Editor in Chief Assange was scheduled to speak. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Declan McCullagh |
| |
Title: |
Reporter |
| |
Agency(ies): |
CNET |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/J7Lno |
|
Title: |
The 8th Hackers on Planet Earth Conference, July 16-18, 2010, New York City |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Feds look for Wikileaks founder at NYC hacker event, Homeland Security agents appear at a hacker conference in Manhattan on Friday looking for Julian Assange, who is scheduled to speak Saturday, according to organizers |
|
Author: |
Declan McCullagh |
|
Title: |
Reporter |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
CNET |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MR. MORRELL: Hey, guys, good afternoon. Thanks for joining us much later than usual. As you know, we were up on the Hill with the secretary this morning. And then there was another event going on in here. So this was the only time we could get together. But I wanted to do so, because it's been a while. I have nothing to start with, so let's get to it.
Anne.
Q Can you talk a little bit about the Bradley Manning case? Can you confirm that he's been given a military lawyer out of Iraq and that there are --
MR. MORRELL: The Bradley -- you're going to have to give me more information than that.
Q This is the WikiLeaks guy, the Army specialist who may or may not be charged with leaking classified material.
MR. MORRELL: I know a lot of guys in uniform, but I don't know them all by name.
No, I can't, Anne. What I know about that situation is that there is an ongoing criminal investigation involving the Army Criminal Investigation Division, as well as I believe some other law enforcement agencies. And I am confident that they will pursue all leads, all evidence to get to the bottom of this.
It appears, though, that someone -- if not multiple people -- violated the trust and confidence bestowed on them by their country, and leaked classified information; which not only is against the law, but potentially endangers the well-being of our forces and potentially jeopardizes our operations. And that, we take very, very seriously. But I don't have anything beyond that.
Phil. I don't have anything beyond that. Phil. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Geoff Morrell |
| |
Title: |
Press Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Pentagon, Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/ylLbp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks surprise talk at Oxford/TED http://bit.ly/avCGOE |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Julian Assange, Chris Anderson & Bruno Giussani at TED [CC photos] http://bit.ly/dw4x0L |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks editor 58th most powerful person in global media says media guardian http://bit.ly/cQptLi |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets More photos from TED [CC license] http://bit.ly/dst9nl |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks receiving tons of significant disclosures | CNN http://bit.ly/c4Y9bi |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Federal agents swoop on New York conference looking for WikiLeaks editor-in-chief http://bit.ly/dbC1RI |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Listen to New York keynote speech via Radio Statler http://bit.ly/cAQjqW |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Packed crowd in New York waiting for WikiLeaks presentation http://bit.ly/c8lRHw |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Real change begins Monday in the WashPost. By the years end, a reformation. Lights on. Rats out. |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Julian gets fictionalized as Good Wife character--facing a murder charge. No. Really. http://bit.ly/cegVud |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Standing ovation for WikiLeaks at TED (video) http://bit.ly/99TNej |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Transcript | US v Pfc. Manning, Article 32 Pretrial, 12/20/11 (by an anonymous journalist, ed. by Alexa O'Brien) |
|
Author: |
Alexa O'Brien |
|
Title: |
Journalist |
|
Concerning: |
"Adrian Lamo, Lamo Chat logs |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Censorship: Labor's hidden policy | ABC http://bit.ly/b0vIdb #nocleanfeed |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember talking to the President sometime last week after discussions with news organizations that these stories were coming.
[...]
This got brought to us late last week...No, never asked them that. Let's understand a few things. The New York Times didn't publish the documents; WikiLeaks published the documents. I will say this, had only The New York Times had this story, would we have made a case and an effort, as we have with them and other news organizations, not to compromise security? Yes. But understand that the Times was one -- The New York Times was one of three news organizations that had access to these documents. We got questions from -- I believe on Friday -- from Der Spiegel, and met with -- Tommy Vietor, Ben Rhodes, and I met with The New York Times on Thursday. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gibbs |
| |
Title: |
Press Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Press Secretary, White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Laqn5 |
|
|
2010-07-25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MR. GIBBS: Jonathan, we certainly, when we learned of the story, notified relevant committees on Capitol Hill that these documents were about to go online. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gibbs |
| |
Title: |
Press Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Press Secretary, White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Laqn5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Feces, Urine, Blood, Smoke and something indescribable http://bit.ly/a6x2RJ http://bit.ly/bqzVzF |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This got brought to us late last week...No, never asked them that. Let's understand a few things. The New York Times didn't publish the documents; WikiLeaks published the documents. I will say this, had only The New York Times had this story, would we have made a case and an effort, as we have with them and other news organizations, not to compromise security? Yes. But understand that the Times was one -- The New York Times was one of three news organizations that had access to these documents. We got questions from -- I believe on Friday -- from Der Spiegel, and met with -- Tommy Vietor, Ben Rhodes, and I met with The New York Times on Thursday. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gibbs |
| |
Title: |
Press Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Press Secretary, White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Laqn5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Homeland Security go after WikiLeaks editor in vain at New York conference. http://bit.ly/a1UKxO |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks & Valerie Plame on SCPR (recording) http://bit.ly/cL14W6 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets US Senate passes 'Libel tourism bill' http://bit.ly/cqN0gL http://immi.is/ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets TED: The conference of cool | FT http://bit.ly/bfP2OC |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WaPo expose of the US shadow-state smothered. Time to take the gloves off if we want reform. http://bit.ly/cTJn7v |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted. These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.
The documents posted by Wikileaks reportedly cover a period of time from January 2004 to December 2009. On December 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years. This shift in strategy addressed challenges in Afghanistan that were the subject of an exhaustive policy review last fall. We know that serious challenges lie ahead, but if Afghanistan is permitted to slide backwards, we will again face a threat from violent extremist groups like al Qaeda who will have more space to plot and train. That is why we are now focused on breaking the Taliban's momentum and building Afghan capacity so that the Afghan government can begin to assume responsibility for its future. The United States remains committed to a strong, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan.
Since 2009, the United States and Pakistan have deepened our important bilateral partnership. Counter-terrorism cooperation has led to significant blows against al Qaeda's leadership. The Pakistani military has gone on the offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, at great cost to the Pakistani military and people. The United States and Pakistan have also commenced a Strategic Dialogue, which has expanded cooperation on issues ranging from security to economic development. Pakistan and Afghanistan have also improved their bilateral ties, most recently through the completion of a Transit-Trade Agreement. Yet the Pakistani government and Pakistan's military and intelligence services must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups. The balance must shift decisively against al Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups, while supporting the aspirations of the Pakistani people. |
| |
Name(s:) |
James Jones |
| |
Title: |
National Security Advisor |
| |
Agency(ies): |
White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/oE40O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks Publication Afghan War Diary, 2004-2010 |
|
Classification: |
Secret, (Below Secret) |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Central Command, CENTCOM, Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Publication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks Publication War Diary: Afghanistan War Logs |
|
Classification: |
Secret, (Below Secret) |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Central Command, CENTCOM, Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Publication |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets US soldier speaks out about Iraq slaughter video http://bit.ly/clWNth |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Afghan war logs: massive leak of secret files exposes hundreds of abuses http://bit.ly/9KJWfq |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks' 'war logs' are online. NYT: nyti.ms/dacIql Guardian: bit.ly/dlNzWx Der Spiegel: bit.ly/bpjIZk |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
2010-08-12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julian Assange: You asked how I knew Anna. To come to Sweden, it was necessary for me to get diplomatic support in order to leave England due to the security situation between my organization and the Pentagon. Political contacts in Sweden therefore suggested that I be invited by the Christian Democrats to give a presentation. A formal invitation would be sent to (inaudible) and England, so that I would have a secure journey from England to Sweden. And I understood that Anna Ardin was press secretary for Broderskapet within the Christian Democrats.
Mats Gehlin (police officer): A correction: It is not the Christian Democrats, but rather the Social Democratic
(inaudible).
Gun von Krusenstjerna (interpreter): Sorry, sorry, I apologize for giving the wrong party.
Mats Gehlin (police officer): Yes.
Gun von Krusenstjerna (interpreter): Excuse me, sorry. The Social Democrats.
Julian Assange: She was contacted by Peter [WEIDERUD ] I don't remember his last name. I believe he is the chair of Broderskapet, and a good man. Anna offered me her flat, and was also involved in organizing the press conference last Friday.
Mats Gehlin (police officer): And on what date did you come to Sweden?_
Julian Assange: I'm not sure. Perhaps the 12th between the 10th and the 12th. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Julian Assange |
| |
Title: |
Editor in Chief |
| |
Agency(ies): |
WikiLeaks |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
Then nothing more became of it. Then Julian travelled abroad again, and there was that collaboration with Der Spiegel, the New York Times and The Guardian._
Much the same media reviewed some material, and we began to discuss the possibility of doing a similar project in Sweden with some other material.
Aftonbladet, Swedish Public TV and other journalists were involved in those discussions. It never got started no documents to dig into, no research has got started, not yet. But it is still in the air. After this storm [i.e. the sex allegations] has settled down, perhaps it will be resumed, perhaps not. I have met Julian on three occasions when he has been in Sweden and we have discussed these matters, many others and myself.
Matt Gehlin (police officer): So the first time was in the spring?
Donald Bostrom: Yes, in the spring.
Matt Gehlin (police officer): Yes, all right.
Donald Bostrom: And the second time was also before summer.
Matt Gehlin (police officer): And the third time, that was when he was to give the presentation?
[...]
[Anna Ardin calls Donald Bostrom, and asks him to hand media inquiries for the August 14 seminar.]
Donald Bostrom: Just so. He had been invited by Broderskapet and, in connection with that, Anna Ardin had called me. I had not met her before, but we soon got on quite well. It was because there was enormous interest from the media, and she wondered if she could pass all the media inquiries on to me in the event that there were a great many_.
So when they called her, which is part of being the organization that invites, she often passed them along to me.
Matt Gehlin (police officer): O.K.
Donald Bostrom: And I mentioned that I have more media experience than she I know many of the journalists who were calling her. So I said I could do it, without realizing what a tremendous amount of time it would consume. And so I believe that many people thought that I was some sort of media co-ordinator for WikiLeaks, but that was not the case._
I merely helped out helped Anna and Broderskapet to get organized for the conference [laughs]._
I have known, or have been familiar with Peter Weiderud for years. We ran into each other in international contexts. I am mainly a foreign correspondent._
Peter Weiderud is chair of Broderskapet and is also very engaged in international issues; so we have sometimes met in the Swedish parliament and so on.
But when this event was to take place, Anna was assigned to act as press secretary. It was then that she rang me and asked is [sic] she might pass the media inquiries on to me [laughs]. I told her that she could. And then a rather big circus started to build around this seminar, there was a lot of interest. And then another circus began a week later when Anna and the other woman went to you lot. At that point my telephone number was already known to the world media, so it was time for the next storm._ |
| |
Name(s:) |
Donald Bostrom |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
Assange & Sweden, Police Interview Protocols |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Nordic News Network |
|
Concerning: |
"Sweden versus Assange |
|
|
Title: |
Assange & Sweden
Protokollen Fran Polisforhoren |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Nordic News Network |
|
Concerning: |
"Sweden versus Assange |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MR. CROWLEY: '...many of the issues that have been raised by these documents have actually been incorporated into the revised strategy that is supported not only by the United States , but Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries.'
[...]
QUESTION: So the United States is still a trustworthy nation in terms of keeping classified information classified?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think if you look on balance, we are the most trusted country in the world and with good reason. We're in these countries to help Afghanistan, Pakistan, other countries develop, prosper, and remain peaceful and stable. And this is part of a responsibility that we bear that, quite honestly, no other country in the world bears the same responsibility as the United States.
QUESTION: So, P.J., we're a bit confused. Which is it? First, the Administration said there is nothing to that, right? They said there was nothing to the substance or the content of these documents. Then you come out and say it's very serious. We take it seriously. So do these really compromise the security of the United States? Do they compromise the troops on the ground? Which is it?
MR. CROWLEY: Any time you have an unauthorized
QUESTION: And I have a follow-up.
MR. CROWLEY: -- release of classified information, it does potentially put operations and lives at risk even if we're talking about historical documents that from years ago, we it's important that the United States has sources so we understand the world and events as they occur. We do our best to protect these sources and I do respect that media organizations that were involved in this process said they went to some lengths to try to protect these sources. But there's always this risk. There's a reason why we have a classification system. It's not necessarily the information itself. You look at some of these documents, the information may be mundane, it may no longer be current. But behind those documents, there are important sources and methods of collecting intelligence information and these are vitally important to the United States and other countries so that we can make sure that our policies are relevant to events as they occur anywhere in the world.
QUESTION: Again, we make a follow-up
MR. CROWLEY: All right. Hold on. Hold up
QUESTION: Just a follow-up quick follow-up.
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: WikiLeaks are making claims that they still have 15,000 documents that they want to release or post shortly. Are you trying to prevent them from doing that or anything has been taken to sort of guard against the posting of such documents?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, say, unlike the news organizations that opened up a dialogue with elements of the United States Government to understand these documents and to work to protect our legitimate security concerns, we've had, as far as I know, no contact with WikiLeaks. Their approach has been, in our view, quite irresponsible and we obviously have concern about the documents that have been released. We would not like to see any further release of documents. Again, these releases jeopardize the national security interests of the United States.
QUESTION: The question of this that came out yesterday from your Afghan counterpart, he was reacting in the sense that these were active documents or actionable documents today; they're not just historical documents. For example, his call that the U.S. needs to do something about Pakistan intelligence, that doesn't sound like an old historical document, but rather an action item that the Afghan Government wants the U.S. to act upon.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, let me separate two things. I mean, first of all, one of the risks in some of these documents is that they reflect field reports that are uncorroborated. Somebody talked to somebody and somebody wrote it down, sent it up the chain, and the information in these documents may or may not be true. As we said yesterday, notwithstanding our ongoing concern about the release of these documents to the extent they raise questions, certainly the relationship among Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, the tensions that have historically existed in the region, this is these are not this is not a startling revelation. It's been central to our revised strategy over the past year.
We don't look at Afghanistan in isolation. We look at Afghanistan in the context of other countries in the region. We have conversations with each of these countries. Each of these countries we consider to be strategic allies in a vitally important region of the world. One of the reasons why we pushed hard, as the Secretary said last week pushed hard for the transit trade agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan to try to change the basis of the relationship between two important allies of the United States. And that transit trade agreement does, in fact, have the potential ability to transform relationships with countries in the region.
So we're very conscious of the history among these countries in the region. We've worked hard to try to help each understand the interests and needs of the other. There is communication going on across these countries that we think is very important, very valuable not just to the United States, but there it is important for Afghanistan and Pakistan to have a stable relationship. They are going to remain neighbors in perpetuity.
It is important for Pakistan and India to have a stable relationship. They, likewise, will have to have a relationship going forward, and if it is stable, then the world, including the United States, benefits. So we are very, very conscious of the complexity that involves these overlapping relationships, and we've worked hard in our dialogue with each country to try to make this a more regional approach to a common challenge.
[...]
QUESTION: You have told us that the U.S. Government spoke to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan about these leaks. Have --
MR. CROWLEY: And other governments as well.
QUESTION: Yes. Have the U.S. addressed the issue of involvement of ISI in particular with these governments to clarify with especially with Pakistan?
MR. CROWLEY: I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean --
QUESTION: Has the U.S. Government has spoken to Pakistani Government, Islamabad about the role of ISI in Mumbai attacks and in other which have come out from these leaks?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have talked to Pakistan about our mutual concerns on terrorism many, many times going back months and years.
QUESTION: No, since the leaks.
MR. CROWLEY: I can't say that we've had a substantive conversation about this, but there are concerns about making sure that we bring that Pakistan bring to justice those responsible for the Mumbai attack. We've had that conversation with Pakistan and India many, many times. And our concerns about elements within Pakistan and connections that those elements have with the Pakistani Government, we've had that conversation with Pakistan many times.
Yeah. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Phillip J. Crowley |
| |
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/weFGV |
|
Title: |
Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, July 27, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Phillip J. Crowley |
|
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
State Department Daily Briefing, Jul 27, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Philip J. Crowley |
|
Title: |
Assistant Secretary of State |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am extremely concerned about the manner in which these documents were leaked and with the recklessness of WikiLeaks in posting them. Our nation's secrets are classified for a reason, and the release of classified documents could put our national securityand the lives of our men and women in combatat serious risk.
'These leaked documents, while troubling, appear to support what I was asserting for years: the war in Afghanistan was not going well, and we needed a real strategy for success. For nearly a decade under the previous administration, our brave war fighters were under-resourced and lacked the direction of a clear strategy. Under the new counterinsurgency strategy implemented earlier this year, we now have the pieces in place to turn things around. These leaked reports pre-date our new strategy in Afghanistan and should not be used as a measure of success or a determining factor in our continued mission there.
'Additionally, some of these documents implicate Pakistan in aiding the Taliban and fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan. It is critical that we not use outdated reports to paint a picture of the cooperation of Pakistan in our efforts in Afghanistan. Since these reports were issued, Pakistan has significantly stepped up its fight against the Taliban, including efforts that led to the capture of the highest ranking member of the Taliban since the start of the war. The Pakistani military has also been in combat for more than a year against its country's own Taliban, which is aligned with al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban attacking American forces and our NATO allies. While we still have concerns about Pakistan's efforts against the Afghan Taliban, there is no doubt that there have been significant improvements in its overall effort.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Ike Skelon (MO-R) |
| |
Title: |
Chair, United States Representative |
| |
Agency(ies): |
House Armed Services Committee, United States House of Representatives |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/QnJry |
|
Title: |
Skelon Statement on WikiLeaks |
|
Author: |
Ike Skelon (MO-D) |
|
Title: |
Chairman |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
House Armed Services Committee, United States House of Representatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Pentagon Assesses Leaked Documents |
|
Author: |
Michael Carden |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
"Afghan War Diary |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are in the process right now of assessing the documents,' Lapan added.
[...]
The Pentagon has yet to confirm the impact of the reports, as it's still early in the assessment process, Lapan said.
[...]
'As they are made available, we will be looking at them to try to determine potential damage to lives of our servicemembers and our coalition partners; whether they reveal sources in methods and any potential damage to national security,' he said. 'Since this was just released last night, we're still in the process going through that assessment.'
[...]
It could take the Pentagon weeks to make such determinations, Lapan said. But much of what the Pentagon has discovered early in the investigation is that the documents are classified at a 'secret' level, and not 'top-secret,' which is reserved for more sensitive material, he said.
[...]
'There's nothing we've seen so far that is particularly relevant,' Lapan added. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Dave Lapan |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/4GgwU |
|
Title: |
Pentagon Assesses Leaked Documents |
|
Author: |
Michael Carden |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have got to change the culture of disclosure not only in Washington DC but really the new culture of connectivity to the Internet is causing us big problems.
Really, it's great its changes the way we interface with each other, it changed commerce in a way that has been phenomenal and presented opportunity to just millions and millions and millions of Americans and people around the world...been a pretty spectacular thing...
But, you get young folks who get into the intelligence business who have been brought up on this notion that I can go onto a social network if I am an intelligence officer or not. I can bring other devices and hook it up to my computer at work cause I am staying connected. If I am an intelligence officer or not...I know it sounds silly. You are thinking, 'Who would do that? That can't happen.'
Matter of fact there was a recent kind of sting/under-cover deal that happened very shortly_not so long ago_where one of the federal folks decided to go through, and just go up on Facebook and see how many people in the intelligence business he could get to respond and communicate and friend.
I would like to tell you it was zero. It was a very large number. Some of them invited this person who did not exist by the way. It was a man posing as a woman, to come in and speak. 'Would they offer advice on some of the projects that they were working on?, Would they like a job?'
I would like to tell you this was ten years ago, cause we just didn't understand it. This was within the last few months, this happened [July 2010].
So you get some young soldier who says, 'I don't really understand the whole war.' By the way if you are a private you have no concept of what the strategy is, right?
For those of you who have been in the military, you know. It takes a lot of rank on your shoulder before you figure out what really is happening on the battlefield. But I haven't met a soldier yet, who didn't think they had a better answer, right?
Including me. I always thought as a Captain, 'Boy I If that general just came down here, I will tell him how to run this war.' Right?
But now they have gone one step farther. And because of this connectivity they decide you know what, 'I don't like this policy. I may not even understand it. I don't even really know what is happening. I think I know. I am gonna release information. I am gonna get this right. Somebody has got to know about this.'
And we are finding huge disclosure of information, what you saw in that 91 thousand documents was not a very senior person who was squirreling away information as we know it today, and felt so wronged by the conduct of the war of which they very clearly had no understanding_that they would release this information.
And now, by the way, now you have a third party making the determination based on a political agenda of what they think should be disclosed: 'I find it offensive on report number six.'
Now they may have never been in the military. They may not understand what report number six does, but they go ahead and release that information. That is about the worst combination you could possibly have.
Well they said, 'We determined it wouldn't be harmful to US troops. ' Really? Well thank you for that. Where was this guy when we needed him? When we were planning how to keep our secrets?
And think of this_they actually located this site...wikisecrets.org [sic] in Belgium, because the laws are so loose about the disclosure of this kind of information.
They very clearly knew what they were doing. And if anytime that you tell the enemy how your soldiers perform or maybe they don't perform or how they perform, you have given them a valuable piece of intelligence_valuable piece of intelligence.
So, any determination by a private first class or some guy from Australia is a dangerous place for us to be.
But it has to not be just there. It is also the fact that we have the Attorney General running out putting documents on the Internet that shouldn't be there.
They disclosed in public some sensitive details of a spy swap before the actual deal was done. You know, it is just shocking that they would do that. Remember the press conference after the Christmas Day bomber where they disclosed people who were cooperating? They were so proud of themselves; they went out and had a press conference_and jeopardized whole lines of communications, and really the health and welfare of individuals not necessarily in the United States.
This culture has to change. It is ok to have state secrets for the national security and the interests of a safer America. It really is. That is why you have an oversight committee. That is why you have us [politicians]. That is why you have outside groups like the institute [Potomac Institute for Policy Studies] here, who are looking and analyzing and taking a look at these things. You have channels to regress [sic address?] your grievances.
You know the FISA case was always fascinating to me, because I was there through that whole thing.
Remember when it got disclosed. I know the newspaper won all kinds of awards for it, and it was disclosed interestingly enough on someone who was never really in the program, never really understood the program, and was not briefed in the program.
But was just close enough that they thought they knew what was in the program, and I can tell you for sure that what they thought they knew and what was published in the papers was not exactly that program.
But it didn't matter, because they got convinced that by their political agenda, something was bad was happening. Caused enough trouble that it certainly gave the bad guys an idea of how we were conducting business. It as not completely accurate, but it was close enough for them, to change the way they operated.
That is a victory for the bad guys. I wish we would get back to 'Loose Lips Sink Ships' Remember that WWII_they actually put posters everywhere reminded people that this isn't about you. It's bigger than you. And, that information that you leaked could cause the death of one of your fellow citizens. We haven't gotten there yet, we have to win that culture of disclosure fight, and we better win it soon.
'What would you do if you were king for a day Mike Rogers?'
I would dismantle the DNI [Director of National Intelligence] as we know it.
I would take every operational touch that that agency has today and move it off and put it back where it belongs in the hands of operators and people who are gonna make useful decisions with it.
And, use the DNI solely for a coordination effort. That should be the most boring intelligence job in the world if we do this right. They don't need to know about operations or the details of a swap on the Russian spies. They don't need to know about some new great breakthrough on the technology that is actually gonna be placed in the field today.
They need to be coordinating. They need to tell us where we are going on our overhead architecture in ten years. They need to tell us where we get rid of waste and duplication.
This is the headquarters element of a very large company that is robust and moving ahead and making sales. They don't need to be in the middle of any of it. If we are gonna do it right, we may even have to change the name of it.
In this town that only ever happens...Ronald Reagan was right when he said the closest thing to living forever is the announcement of a government program. Or something close to that...anyway.
That is why he was Ronald Reagan he said that a lot better than I did.
If we do not change where we are going we are going to have lots of problems.
Think about it. Cyber. We have built more bureaucracy to get a handle on the bureaucracy not gonna work. The bureaucracy itself we handle by creating this huge mammoth bureaucracy that is sucking up resources, and it has created this 'culture'...perpetuating this 'culture of disclosure.'
And that starts at the top, but it works all the way down in this new social media and medium. If we do not get a handle on these three things I am telling you we are not g |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mike Rogers (MI-R) |
| |
Title: |
Chair, United States Representative |
| |
Agency(ies): |
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, United States House of Representatives |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
Intelligence Management and Oversight, July 26, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Mike Rogers (R-MI) |
|
Title: |
Chairman |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, United States House of Representatives |
|
Audience: |
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.
Q Thanks, Robert. Two questions, a few on WikiLeaks. What was the President's reaction once he heard about the leaking --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I remember talking to the President sometime last week after discussions with news organizations that these stories were coming. Look, I think our reaction to this type of material, a breach of federal law, is always the same, and that is whenever you have the potential for names and for operations and for programs to be out there in the public domain, that it -- besides being against the law -- has a potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are cooperating with our military, and those that are working to keep us safe.
Q Well, I mean, was he personally angered by this? Did he demand answers or an investigation?
MR. GIBBS: Well, there is an ongoing investigation that predated the end of last week into leaks of highly classified secret documents>.
Q Does the White House believe that the documents raise doubts about whether Pakistan is a reliable partner in fighting terrorism?
MR. GIBBS: Well, let's understand a few things about the documents. Based on what we've seen, I don't think that what is being reported hasn't in many ways been publicly discussed either by you all or by representatives of the U.S. government for quite some time. We have certainly known about safe havens in Pakistan; we have been concerned about civilian casualties for quite some time -- and on both of those aspects we've taken steps to make improvements.
I think just the last time General Petreaus testified in front of the Senate there was a fairly robust discussion about the historical relationships that have been had between the Taliban and Pakistan's intelligence services.
Q So no doubts about Pakistan's trustworthiness or reliability?
MR. GIBBS: No, no, look, I think the President was clear back in March of 2009 that there was no blank check for Pakistan, that Pakistan had to change the way it dealt with us, it had to make progress on safe havens. Look, it's in the interest of the Pakistanis because we certainly saw last year those extremists that enjoy the safe haven there turning their eye on innocent Pakistanis. That's why you've seen Pakistan make progress in moving against extremists in Swat and in South Waziristan.
But at the same time, even as they make progress, we understand that the status quo is not acceptable and that we have to continue moving this relationship in the right direction.
Q One more quickly on this. What do you think this says about the ability of the government to protect confidential information if a breach like this can occur?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think there is no doubt that this is a concerning development in operational security. And as we said earlier, it is -- it poses a very real and potential threat to those that are working hard every day to keep us safe.
[...]
Q On the WikiLeaks, one of the questions that this raises is whether it makes sense for the United States to continue to give billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan if they are helping the Taliban. And I'm wondering if that's a concern and what you think.
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as I said a minute ago, on March 27, 2009, the President said, 'After years of mixed results we will not and cannot provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders.'
Again, I am not going to stand here on July the 26th and tell you that all is well. I will tell you that we have made progress in moving this relationship forward; in having the Pakistanis, as I said earlier, address the issue of safe havens, the issue of extremists operating in the country by undertaking operations, again, in Swat and in South Waziristan -- because over the course of the past more than year and a half, what the Pakistanis have found is that the extremists that once enjoyed complete save haven in parts of their country now threaten their country. So they've taken steps. We want to continue to work with them to take more steps.
We understand that we are in this region of the world because of what happened on 9/11; that ensuring that there is not a safe haven in Afghanistan by which attacks against this country and countries around the world can be planned. That's why we're there and that's why we're going to continue to make progress on this relationship.
Q A blank check is one thing, but is there enough progress there to justify the aid that is being given to them?
MR. GIBBS: Again, look, we -- I think it was -- even if you look at some of the comments the Secretary of State made just last week in Pakistan, our criticism has been relayed both publicly and privately and we will continue to do so in order to move this relationship forward.
Q And I know you're unhappy about the leak, but could you talk about how that part of the issue was characterized in the memos and whether you think it's accurate?
MR. GIBBS: Which --
Q In terms of Pakistan's role.
MR. GIBBS: Look, again, I would point you to -- as I said a minute ago, I don't know that what is being said or what is being reported isn't something that hasn't been discussed fairly publicly, again, by named U.S. officials and in many news stories. I mean, The New York Times had a story on this topic in March of 2009 written by the same authors.
[...]
Q Robert back on WikiLeaks. A couple of times now, you've said in the last couple of moments that a lot of this information is not really new, that named U.S. government officials have said some of this same information publicly.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm not saying it's -- yes, I said there weren't any new revelations in the material.
Q So how does it harm national security if we've known this already?
MR. GIBBS: Well, because you've got -- it's not the content as much as it is their names, their operations, there's logistics, there are sources -- all of that information out in a public way has the potential, Ed, to do harm. If somebody is cooperating with the federal government and their name is listed in an action report, I don't think it's a stretch to believe that that could potentially put a group or an individual at great personal risk.
Q But is part of the concern as well that this is going to embarrass government officials because maybe the war in Afghanistan is a lot worse off than this administration and the previous administration let on?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, Ed, that's why I would go back to my first point, which is in terms of broad revelations, there aren't any that we see in these documents. And let's understand this -- when you talk about the way the war is going in Afghanistan, the documents purportedly cover from I think January of 2004 to December 2009.
I can't speak for the conduct of that war from an operational perspective for most of that time. I do know that when the President came into office in 2009, he, in the first few months, ordered an increase in the number of out troops -- having spent two years talking about how our efforts in Afghanistan were greatly under-resourced -- increased resources and troops to provide security for an election, and then, as you well know, conducted a fairly comprehensive and painstaking review of our policy, which resulted in December 1, 2009's speech about a new direction in Afghanistan.
And I would say this: We came in talking about Afghanistan and Pakistan as a region, not as simply two separate and distinct countries, which put emphasis on our relationship and the actions of Pakistan.
Q Right, but even if there was a new policy put in place in December of 2009, does that erase the mistakes that may have been made years in advance of that --
MR. GIBBS: Well, of course not --
Q -- how can that -- but do these documents then suggest that this war is too far gone --
MR. GIBBS: No --
Q -- to turn around with one policy change?
MR. GIBBS: No, I don't in any way suggest the documents suggest that and I haven't seen anybody to suggest that -- except to say this, Ed, we agree that the direction -- this administration spent a large part of 2007 and 2008 campaigning to be this administrati |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gibbs |
| |
Title: |
Press Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Press Secretary, White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/TWVlC |
|
Title: |
White House Daily Briefing, Jul 26, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Robert Gibbs |
|
Title: |
Press Secretary |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
White House |
|
|
Title: |
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 7/26/2010 |
|
Author: |
Robert Gibbs |
|
Title: |
Press Secretary |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
White House |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks Release of Classified War Documents, Jul 26, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Julian Assange |
|
Title: |
Editor in Chief |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
WikiLeaks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks exposes the unseen war (video) http://bit.ly/b6KkrL |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Let the spin begin: White House offers 'advice' on Wikileaks to reporters http://nyti.ms/9xtijK |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Secret CIA units kill deaf mute and other civilians in Afghanistan http://bit.ly/9gNyVa |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks reveals over 2200 US Afghanistan Escalation of Force incidents http://bit.ly/9RlJQ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks media bookings (London studios) now +44 7958 175 856 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks is tremendously overloaded. Please use http://bit.ly/9RlJQA |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets How to leak it: Advice for whistleblowers: Julian Assange (video) http://bit.ly/aaz9c2 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets CW: Prof. Askin on War Diary: 'transparency should become govts default approach to national security' http://bit.ly/AWD-CW |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets FAZ zu #Afghanistan Kriegsprotokollen: 'Wikileaks als _berstaatliches Ministerium der Wahrheit' - http://bit.ly/AWD-faz |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Although sharing opportunities may have pitfalls, such as the events leading to the WikiLeaks publication of classified material, Burgess said, the value of sharing information transcends the temporary damage it may cause. 'You can't let an event like that slow down what you know to be the goodness of what it is you're trying to do,' he said. 'While that happens, you need to fix what may have caused leaks like that and ensure you put safeguards in place that allow you to protect information. You can't let it detract you from what you're trying to do overall.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Ronald Burgess |
| |
Title: |
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Defense Intelligence Agency |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/huVJA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The chairman is very concerned about the release of these documents. 'Releasing classified documents could put in jeopardy American lives,' he said.
[...]
'We're going through a review to see in fact if that release has done that. But in my experience with troops from conventional to special forces, I think sometimes people don't appreciate what information could be out there that makes their jobs a lot more difficult and in fact, could jeopardize their lives.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mike Mullen |
| |
Title: |
Chair |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/YZY8m |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. RES. 1556 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 301) directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Pakistan, if called up by Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his designee. The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for one hour, with 30 minutes controlled by Representative Kucinich of Ohio or his designee and 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
United States Government Printing Office |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
Congressional Record-House |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States Government Printing Office |
|
|
Title: |
Final Vote Results for Roll Call 470 HRES 1556 |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Office of the Clerk, US House of Representatives |
|
|
Title: |
Debate on removal of US Armed Forces From Pakistan, Jul 27, 2010 |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States House of Representatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An investigation has been initiated, [and] Army CID has the lead,' Lapan said.
[...]
'(CID) is an investigative agency that has the ability, the capability, to do these types of things,' Lapan said. 'There are a number of investigative agencies (within the Pentagon), but the decision was made that Army CID takes the lead.'
[...]
Army CID, he said, also is investigating the case of Army Spc. Bradley Manning, who has been charged with leaking a video of a U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq to WikiLeaks. The document leaks investigation is a continuation or extension of the existing open investigation on Manning, Lapan said.
[...]
However, he added, the document leak investigation is 'broader' than the Manning case.
[...]
'The current investigation into the leak of the documents to WikiLeaks isn't focused on any one, specific individual,' Lapan said. 'It's much broader. They're going to look everywhere to determine what the source may be.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Dave Lapan |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/WUE6Y |
|
|
The answer, Morrell said, is 'to go after the 'bad actors,' hold them responsible, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, but don't change the fundamental trusting relationship that makes the military so effective.'
[...]
'We are aligned in that respect,' Morrell said of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. 'But we each have our own interests here that we have to balance and work through. We think we're making a lot of progress there, but we're not alone in the driver's seat.
[...]
'As Secretary Gates says, we're in the passenger seat. They're at the wheel,' Morrell continued. 'They determine the direction and the pace, but we're going to be their partner in this effort.'
[...]
'And are there any things in there that could jeopardize our operations or our nation's security?' he continued. 'We just don't know at this point.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Geoff Morrell |
| |
Title: |
Press Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Pentagon, Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/WUE6Y |
|
Title: |
Pentagon Launches Probe into Document Leaks |
|
Author: |
Michael Carden |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Pentagon has launched an investigation to find out how thousands of classified military documents were leaked to the group WikiLeaks.org, a Defense Department spokesman said.
[...]
However, he added, the document leak investigation is 'broader' than the Manning case.
[...]
'The current investigation into the leak of the documents to WikiLeaks isn't focused on any one, specific individual,' Lapan said. 'It's much broader. They're going to look everywhere to determine what the source may be.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Dave Lapan |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/F5A8f |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also urged the House leaders to pass the necessary funding to support our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I know much has been written about this in recent days as a result of the substantial leak of documents from Afghanistan covering a period from 2004 to 2009.
While I'm concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield that could potentially jeopardize individuals or operations, the fact is these documents don't reveal any issues that haven't already informed our public debate on Afghanistan; indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall.
So let me underscore what I've said many times: For seven years, we failed to implement a strategy adequate to the challenge in this region, the region from which the 9/11 attacks were waged and other attacks against the United States and our friends and allies have been planned.
That's why we've substantially increased our commitment there, insisted upon greater accountability from our partners in Afghanistan and Pakistan, developed a new strategy that can work, and put in place a team, including one of our finest generals, to execute that plan. Now we have to see that strategy through.
And as I told the leaders, I hope the House will act today to join the Senate, which voted unanimously in favor of this funding, to ensure that our troops have the resources they need and that we're able to do what's necessary for our national security. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Barack Obama |
| |
Title: |
President of the United States |
| |
Agency(ies): |
White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/I3kTB |
|
Title: |
Remarks by the President After Bipartisan Leadership Meeting, Rose Garden |
|
Author: |
Barack Obama |
|
Title: |
President of the United States |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
White House |
|
Concerning: |
"Afghan War Diary |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Presidential Remarks on WikiLeaks of Classified Documents |
|
Author: |
Barack Obama |
|
Title: |
President of the United States |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
White House |
|
Concerning: |
"Afghan War Diary |
|
|
Title: |
Obama: Issues in Leaked Documents Led to Review |
|
Author: |
Lisa Daniel |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'Wikileaks released 92,000 previously secret documents, totaling 200,000 pages, any one of which could conceivably be a case for a congressional hearing, which demonstrate that Congress has not been given a true account of the war by either the military or by two administrations. It would be good if Congress had announced hearings once WikiLeaks documents came forward.
But what we've learned is this: our troops are being placed in mortal peril because of poor logistics, countless innocent civilians killed by mistake, an Afghanistan Government which is hopelessly corrupt, Pakistan intelligence collaborating with the Taliban against the U.S., the Pentagon understating the fire power of the insurgents, a top Pakistani general visiting a suicide bombing school monthly.
Will we go deeper in this war in Afghanistan despite an abundance of information that it's time to get out?
We need to make the decision now. Today, vote against the supplemental.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Dennis Kucinich D-OH |
| |
Title: |
United States Representative |
| |
Agency(ies): |
United States House of Representatives |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Author: |
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) |
|
Title: |
United States Representative |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States House of Representatives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets BBC: Afghan War Diaries a treasure trove for historians, showing elusive quality of raw intelligence http://bit.ly/AWD-bbc |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets HuffPost: 'monumental leak of classified Afghan war documents to create deeper doubts about the war' http://huff.to/AWD-hp |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Afghanistan-Experte Marc Th_rner heute mit sehr guter Analyse im Tagesspiegel: 'Protokolle eines Krieges' http://bit.ly/AWD-TS |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q General Campbell, Barbara Starr from CNN. When you look at something like Wikileaks, as a commander, what concerns you about the -- specifically, if you can, about the disclosure of that type of information and the risk that it can pose to troops, operations and Afghan civilians who assist you? And I ask this because so many people are trying to assess is this really a critical leak of information, or is it just a huge volume of relatively low-level material.
GEN. CAMPBELL: Hi, Barbara. Good to see you again.
First off as you know, we've been tied up with this DUSTWUN operation. So I've not really read any of the 92,000-plus documents that have reported to be leaked.
I would just tell you from my perspective though, anytime there's any sort of leak of classified material, it has the potential to harm or put in harm's way the military folks that are working out here every day, to preserve that.
So I have not seen any specific examples of what's in that. I've been tied up with this DUSTWUN operation 24/7. If it does in fact name names of people that have worked with coalition forces, I could see that that would have a detriment down the road.
My read just briefly from looking at a couple articles early this morning is that much of the stuff that has come out there is really not new news. It's between 2004 and I think December 2009. Most of that I think we've heard about.
So I didn't think there was anything staggering or new that we didn't know. There are some issues there about the Pakistan interaction and the tie-in with what's going on over here.
I would just tell you that we're really working hard with our Pakistan counterparts. I have Pakistani LNOs in the JOC here. I've been over to Pakistan since I've been here, to work with the XI Corps and the Frontier Corps.
I think we have a great opportunity here in the next six to nine months, with the leadership that we have on the border of Pakistan and down to the battalion level, to really work that aggressively.
There have been a lot of operations the last year-plus in Pakistan along the border. I think they realize that we face a common foe and we have to work together, to get rid of that common foe, to make sure that we don't have safe havens in Pakistan.
And some -- I think there's some potential to do good stuff. But as far as the Wikileaks, I don't think there's a great impact currently on us here today. And we have not changed any of our operations or any strategy here based on that. |
| |
Name(s:) |
John Campbell |
| |
Title: |
Commander |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Regional Command East in Afghanistan, Combined Joint Task Force 101,101st Airborne Division, Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
Afghan War Diary |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/cL0Wr |
|
|
Pentagon spokesman Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan said today that U.S. troops in Afghanistan are hearing discontent from Afghan partners, whose names were revealed in the documents leak. Some Afghan nationals work with coalition forces to provide information and whereabouts of militants and insurgent activities.
[...]
'There's been displeasure from folks whose names appeared there,' Lapan said. 'Anyone whose name appears in those documents is at risk. It could be a threat to their lives, or to their future conduct' in support of coalition forces. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Dave Lapan |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/qDk9O |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your July 28, 2010, letter regarding the unauthorized disclosure and publication of classified military documents by the WikiLeaks organization. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gates |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of Defense |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday, I called FBI Director Robert Mueller and asked for the FBI's assistance in our investigation as a partner. It is important that we have all the resources we need to investigate and assess this breach of national security. Furthermore, the department is taking action in theater to prevent a repeat of such a breach, to include tightening procedures for accessing and transporting classified information. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gates |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of Defense |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/nhVsF |
|
Title: |
Gates Calls on FBI to Join Leak Investigation |
|
Author: |
Jim Garamone |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Britain to launch Afghan war inquiry http://bit.ly/cLvGEh |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks in Baghdad | Nation http://bit.ly/cGviIY |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Bill O'Reilly-Stratfor on the Afghan War Diary http://bit.ly/cnirR5 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Can we also just kind of talk the WikiLeaks before we move on?
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: One last question. So India has always maintained and provided proof that of this relationship between the ISI and the Taliban extremist groups. Now that America admits that they know of this and they have known of it all along, will you be putting more pressure on your ally, Pakistan, to bring those responsible for 26/11, including the death of six Americans, to justice?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, I would challenge the assumption that this is a new revelation. It is not a new revelation. Our concerns about the ISI and its contacts with some of these elements has been well known. It has been a part of our conversation with Pakistan for some time. Pakistan itself has commented publicly about this. But we are focused on the decisive action that Pakistan must take to deal with the threat that is within its borders and has, in the last year or two, become clear that it's a threat to Pakistan, and we are satisfied with the aggressive action that Pakistan has taken in response. We want to see that aggressive action continue. Where we have concerns about ongoing contacts, we will not hesitate to raise them with Pakistan.
But ultimately, as we seek a military and political solution to this challenge, it will take the leadership of Afghanistan, as was outlined last week in the Kabul conference. But Pakistan will have to play a role in this, as will other countries in the region. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Phillip J. Crowley |
| |
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/OVht7 |
|
Title: |
Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC, July 29, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Phillip J. Crowley |
|
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Upon his arrival, he was placed in MAX custody and under suicide risk. |
| |
Name(s:) |
David Coombs |
| |
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/ALeco |
|
|
On 29 July 2010, I was transferred to the Quantico Brig from Kuwait. Upon my arrival, I was placed in Maximum (MAX) custody and under suicide risk.
[...]
The suicide risk means that I sit in my cell for 24 hours a day. I am stripped of all clothing with the exception of my underwear. My prescription eyeglasses are taken away from me. I am forced to sit in essential blindness with the exception of the times that I am reading or given limited television privileges. During those times, my glasses are returned to me. Additionally, there is a guard sitting outside my cell watching me at all times. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Bradley Manning |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
WASHINGTON (Army News Service, July 30, 2010) - The Soldier suspected of leaking classified information to the website 'WikiLeaks' arrived last night at a pre-trial confinement facility on Quantico Marine Base, Va., as part of the transfer of court-martial jurisdiction in his case to the U. S. Army Military District of Washington.
Pfc. Bradley E. Manning had been confined at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, since May 29 after being suspected of providing WikiLeaks classified video showing a July 2007 Apache helicopter strike in Baghdad. He is now also suspected of being involved in leaking thousands of intelligence reports about the conflict in Afghanistan.
Manning was charged on July 5 with four specifications under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violating Army Regulation 25-2 (Information Assurance Policy), and eight specifications under Article 134 for violating federal statutes related to the receipt of classified information (18 U.S.C. 793) and wrongful access of a government computer (18 U.S.C. 1030).
With his transfer to Quantico, Manning is now under the general court-martial convening authority of Maj. Gen. Karl R. Horst, MDW commanding general. Manning will remain in pre-trial confinement as the Army continues its investigation, officials said.
Maj. Gen. Terry Wolff, the general court-martial convening authority and commanding general of the 1st Armored Division/U.S. Division - Center in Iraq, requested the transfer to MDW due to a potentially lengthy pre-trial confinement because of the complexity of charges and an ongoing investigation. The field confinement facility in Kuwait is designed for short-term confinement.
The criminal investigation remains open, officials said. They explained that preferral of charges represents an accusation only and that Manning is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.
Manning, of Potomac, Md., entered the Army in October 2007 as an intelligence analyst (Military Occupational Specialty 35F). He was assigned to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. That unit deployed to Iraq in October and is now in the process of returning back to Fort Drum, N.Y. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Public Affairs, Military District of Washington, Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/cayNJ |
|
Title: |
Elk Grove Native Takes Command In Europe |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
CBS Sacramento |
|
Notes: |
Major General Terry Wolff, the commanding general of the 1st Armored Division/U.S. Division - Center in Iraq and general court-martial convening authority of Bradley Manning in Iraq. Major General Terry A. Wolff was promoted to Deputy Commanding General and Chief of Staff U.S. Army Europe on February 2, 2011, and promoted to Lieutenant General August 11, 2010 |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Nominations Confirmed (Non-Civilian) |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States Senate |
|
Notes: |
Major General Terry Wolff, the commanding general of the 1st Armored Division/U.S. Division - Center in Iraq and general court-martial convening authority of Bradley Manning in Iraq. Major General Terry A. Wolff was promoted to Deputy Commanding General and Chief of Staff U.S. Army Europe on February 2, 2011, and promoted to Lieutenant General August 11, 2010 |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Army transfers accused intel specialist to MDW |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Military District of Washington |
|
Notes: |
Major General Karl R. Horst, former commanding general of MDW, and Bradley Manning's general court-martial convening authority from the time of Manning's transfer at Quantico until July 18, 2011 when Horst became Chief of Staff at United States Central Command (US CENTCOM) |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
U.S. Central Command Leadership |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States Central Command (US CENTCOM) |
|
Notes: |
Major General Karl R. Horst, former commanding general of MDW, and Bradley Manning's general court-martial convening authority from the time of Manning's transfer at Quantico until July 18, 2011 when Horst became Chief of Staff at United States Central Command (US CENTCOM) |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Army transfers accused intel specialist to MDW |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Military District of Washington |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
US v. Pfc. Manning Court Ruling on defense Article 13 motion |
|
Author: |
Denise Lind |
|
Title: |
Chief Military Judge |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
First Judicial Circuit, United States Army, Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
"United States versus Private First Class Manning, Article 13, Unlawful Pretrial Confinement |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SEC. GATES: Good afternoon. I would first like to start with some comments about the release and subsequent publication of classified military documents earlier this week.
First, as the president stated, the problems identified and the issues raised in these documents relating to the war in Afghanistan have been well known in and out of government for some time. In fact, it was the recognition of many of these challenges that led to the president to conduct an extensive review of our Afghan strategy last year, which concluded that our mission there needed a fundamentally new approach.
These documents represent a mountain of raw data and individual impressions, most several years old, devoid of context or analysis. They do not represent official positions or policy. And they do not, in my view, fundamentally call into question the efficacy of our current strategy in Afghanistan and its prospects for success.
Having said all that, the battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world. Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures, will become known to our adversaries.
This department is conducting a thorough, aggressive investigation to determine how this leak occurred, to identify the person or persons responsible, and to assess the content of the information compromised. We have a moral responsibility to do everything possible to mitigate the consequences for our troops and our partners downrange, especially those who have worked with and put their trust in us in the past, who now may be targeted for retribution.
Yesterday, I called FBI Director Robert Mueller and asked for the FBI's assistance in our investigation as a partner. It is important that we have all the resources we need to investigate and assess this breach of national security. Furthermore, the department is taking action in theater to prevent a repeat of such a breach, to include tightening procedures for accessing and transporting classified information.
As a general proposition, we endeavor to push access to sensitive battlefield information down to where it is most useful -- on the front lines -- where as a practical matter there are fewer restrictions and controls than at rear headquarters. In the wake of this incident, it will be a real challenge to strike the right balance between security and providing our frontline troops the information they need.
The U.S. military's success over the years rests on the abilities and integrity of its men and women in uniform and our trust in them. This trust is represented by the fact that, relative to other countries' armed forces, our military culture is one that on the battlefield places great responsibility on the shoulders of even junior servicemembers, to include entrusting them with sensitive information. The American way of war depends upon it.
But to earn and maintain that trust, we must all be responsible in handling, protecting and safeguarding our nation's secrets. For years there has been what I would call appropriate criticism of excessive classification and over-classification of information. However, this recent release of documents is a pointed reminder that much secret information is treated as such to protect sources of information, to protect the lives of our men and women in uniform, to deny our enemies the information about our military operations, and to preserve our relationships with friends and allies.
This recent massive breach should be a reminder to all entrusted with our secrets that there are potentially dramatic and grievously harmful consequences of violations of trust and responsibility. We will aggressively investigate and, wherever possible, prosecute such violations.
Chairman.
[...]
Q Mr. Secretary, do you believe that the investigation should go beyond the source or sources of the leak within the military to include those who received or used the information -- WikiLeaks, the news media? And does the presence of the FBI in the investigation indicate such a widening of its scope?
SEC. GATES: Obviously, in the middle of an investigation, and particularly one that is in the military justice system, there's very little that I can say because of the potential for command influence. My basic position, though, is the investigation should go wherever it needs to go. And one of the reasons that I asked the director of the FBI to partner with us in this is to ensure that it can go wherever it needs to go.
Q To include potentially beyond --
SEC. GATES: I'll just -- I'll just leave it at that.
Julian.
Q Sir, PFC Bradley Manning was charged earlier with another leak to WikiLeaks. Do you feel that there was not -- was there an aggressive enough effort to examine what he accessed that he was not supposed to access? Have you thoroughly looked at what documents he, who's already accused, might have looked at in addition to what he's already been charged with?
SEC. GATES: Well, obviously, what I just said in response to Anne's question goes here, too. I'm just not going to talk about any specific individual or the status of the investigation.
Q If I could try again, then, on a slightly different matter. Is there -- are you -- you mentioned that there would be some changes at the tactical level in Iraq. Are you concerned that -- is it a problem that the rules -- there were insufficient rules in place, or that rules were not followed to the letter that allowed breaches on the front line?
SEC. GATES: Well, again, the -- based on what I've been briefed on and what I knew before, as I said in my statement, if the kind of breach involved in the downloading of these thousands of documents had occurred at a rear headquarters or here in the U.S., very high likelihood we would have detected it.
But the interesting thing is -- and it really was one of the lessons learned from the first Gulf War in 1991 -- was how little useful intelligence information was being received by battalion and company commanders in the field. And so there has been an effort over the last 15 or so years in the military, and I would say really accelerated during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to push as much information as far forward as possible, which means putting it in a secret channel that almost everybody has access to in uniform, and obviously many civilians as well.
We want those soldiers in a forward operating base to have all the information they possibly can have that impacts on their own security, but also being able to accomplish their mission. And so one of the things that we are going to have to look at with General Petraeus, and soon General Austin, is what kind of -- should we change the way we approach that, or do we -- do we continue to take the risk?
And there are some technological solutions. Most of them are not immediately available to us. But figuring out if we need to change the balance I think is one of the issues that independent of the investigations that all of us are going to have to work on.
[...]
SEC. GATES: I would -- I would just add one other thing. The thing to remember here is that this is a huge amount of raw data, as I said at the outset of my remarks. There is no accountability. There is no sense of responsibility. It is sort of thrown out there for take as you will and damn the consequences.
Q With all due respect, you didn't answer the question.
Q Mr. Secretary, if I could just come back a minute, the fact is, the department -- the U.S. military knew weeks ago; it is part of the public record that tens of thousands of documents had been downloaded. Without referencing any particular legal matter, it has been in the public record released by this department. Charge sheets had been filed. The department, the military knew. So why the surprise? Why didn't the military move faster to assess this, to establish a team to assess it, to bring the FBI in? Charges were filed about tens of thousan |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gates |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of Defense |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/yYDfm |
|
|
ADM. MULLEN: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I certainly share your concerns about the recklessness with which classified documents were both leaked and then posted online.
As I said earlier this week, I am appalled by this behavior, and, frankly, outraged that anyone in their right mind would think it valuable to make public even one sensitive report, let alone tens of thousands of them, about a war that is being waged.
Yes, the documents are old and essentially raw inputs to our intelligence and operations apparatus. And yes, much of what has been revealed has already been commonly understood by the public or otherwise covered in the media. I can assure you, having just come from visits to Afghanistan and Pakistan, that none of what I've seen posted online or reported in the press affects our overarching strategy.
But, frankly, that's not why this is so destructive. The sheer size and scope of the collection now demands a careful review to determine the degree to which future tactical operations may be impacted, and the degree to which the lives of our troops and Afghan partners may be at risk. And I think we always need to be mindful of the unknown potential for damage in any particular document that we handle.
Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point.
And while I'm at it, let me make one: A big part of my trip -- indeed, a big part of my time as chairman -- has revolved around building and sustaining relationships. Everywhere I went over the last 10 days, those relationships were front and center -- not just for me, but for our commanders and for our diplomats.
I saw it in Kabul, where Ambassador Eikenberry and General Petraeus have forged a strong team and an even stronger dialogue with the Karzai administration.
I saw it in Kandahar city, where I met with a company of U.S. MPs living and working side by side with Afghan police at a security station near the outskirts of town.
I saw it in Islamabad in yet another of my engagements with General Kayani. He spent an entire afternoon flying me to northern Pakistan so I could see for myself some of the rugged terrain he and his troops have to patrol.
If we've learned nothing else in fighting these wars, it's that relationships matter. They are vital. We are not going to kill our way to success, and we sure aren't going to achieve success alone.
So in addition to making sure we understand the tactical risks from these leaks, I think it's incumbent upon us not to let the good relations -- relationships we've established and the trust we've worked so hard to build throughout the region also become a casualty.
Thank you.
[...]
ADM. MULLEN: Let me take this.
SEC. GATES: Yeah, yeah.
ADM. MULLEN: Can I just add -- make one additional comment to that, is in that change, what it has done is it has put -- pushed -- put us in a position to much better match the enemy in terms of speed of war. It's integrated intelligence more rapidly into operations, which then generates more intelligence, which allows us to operate much more effectively. And I think, obviously, as the secretary said, we're going to have to take a look at what this investigation tells us and make sure that we have the balance exactly right.
Q Admiral Mullen, you have mentioned that the founder of WikiLeaks may have blood on his hands. Do you know, have people been killed over this information?
ADM. MULLEN: They're still -- what I am concerned about with this is I think individuals who are not involved in this kind of warfare and expose this kind of information can't -- from my perspective, can't appreciate how this kind of information is routinely networked together inside the classified channels we use specifically.
And it's very difficult, if you don't do this and understand this, to understand the impact, and very specifically the potential that is there -- that is there to risk lives of our soldiers and sailors, airmen and Marines, coalition warfighters, as well -- as well as Afghan citizens. And there's no doubt in my mind about that.
Q What --
[...]
ADM. MULLEN: I think the heart of your question goes to the ISI. And specifically -- and I've said before and would repeat that it's an organization that, actually, we have, in ways, a very positive relationship, very healthy relationship between our intelligence organizations.
And there have been -- that said, there have been elements of the ISI that have got relationships -- a relationship with extremist organizations, and that we -- you know, I, we, consider that unacceptable. In the long run, I think that the ISI has to strategically shift its -- tied in great part to what the secretary's laid out -- focused on its view of its own national-security interests.
These are issues that -- and I have seen some of this; I was just with General Kayani again, and this is a subject we frequently discuss. And they have, as the secretary said, in that country, captured lots of terrorists, killed lots of terrorists, focused on terrorism. And they are strategically shifting.
That doesn't mean that they are through that shift at all, and they do still -- they are still focused on rebuilding this trust as well, and it is not yet rebuilt. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mike Mullen |
| |
Title: |
Chair |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/yYDfm |
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks Release of Classified War Documents, Jul 29, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Robert Gates, Mike Mullen |
|
Title: |
Secretary of Defense, Chair |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
"Afghan War Diary |
|
|
Title: |
DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon |
|
Author: |
Robert Gates, Mike Mullen |
|
Title: |
Chair |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
"Afghan War Diary |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Gates Calls on FBI to Join Leak Investigation |
|
Author: |
Jim Garamone |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
Title: |
Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy, conduct a joint press conference in the Pentagon on July 29, 2010. The leak of many thousands of classified documents on the WikiLeaks website was the chief topic under discussion. DoD photo by R. D. Ward. (Released) |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Audio Press Release |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Pentagon, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the authorities continued their investigation into the source of the leaks, a Seattle-based software developer who has volunteered for WikiLeaks said he was detained at Newark Liberty International Airport on Thursday and questioned for three hours. The developer, Jacob Appelbaum, 27, said in an interview that as he was returning from an overseas trip, agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from the Army's criminal investigation division asked him about Mr. Assange.
Mr. Appelbaum, an American citizen, said the agents also seized his laptop computer and three cellphones. The laptop was later returned, but the phones were not, he said. Officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, part of the Department of Homeland Security, would not comment.
[...]
Mr. Appelbaum said the agents at Newark Airport refused him access to a lawyer and threatened to detain him for similar questioning whenever he re-entered the country after traveling abroad, which he said he did twice a month for a day job as an online software developer.
'They questioned my ability to re-enter the U.S. even though I'm a U.S. citizen,' he said in a telephone interview from Las Vegas. 'It's very troubling to think that every time I cross the border, I'd get this treatment.'
Mr. Appelbaum, who develops software for the Tor Project, a software system that allows people to talk anonymously to each other online, filled in for Mr. Assange at a conference last month, apparently because Mr. Assange did not want to enter the United States. 'It seems the only reason they're bothering me is that Julian is beyond their reach,' Mr. Appelbaum said.
Mr. Appelbaum said he had been a volunteer for WikiLeaks for several months, but was not involved in reviewing information submitted to it. Investigators, however, appear to be examining whether Mr. Assange was assisted by others in obtaining the documents. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Eric Schmitt, David Sanger |
| |
Title: |
Reporter |
| |
Agency(ies): |
New York Times |
|
Concerning: |
Border Searches, Grand Jury, Search and Seizure |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/oZd0p |
|
|
Jacob Appelbaum, a Seattle-based programmer for the online privacy protection project called Tor, arrived at the Newark, N.J., airport on a flight from Holland on Thursday morning when he was pulled aside by customs and border protection agents, who told him that he was randomly selected for a security search, according to the sources familiar with the matter, who asked to remain anonymous.
Appelbaum, a U.S. citizen, was taken into a room and frisked, and his bag was searched. Receipts from his bag were photocopied, and his laptop was inspected, the sources said. Officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and from the U.S. Army then told him that he was not under arrest but was being detained, the sources said. The officials asked questions about Wikileaks, asked for his opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked where Wikileaks founder Julian Assange could be found, but Appelbaum declined to comment without a lawyer present, according to the sources. Appelbaum was not permitted to make a phone call, the sources said.
After about three hours, Appelbaum was given his laptop back, but the agents kept his three mobile phones, sources said.
Asked for comment, Appelbaum declined to talk to CNET. However, he made reference to Defcon attendees about his phone getting seized. Following a question-and-answer session after his talk on the Tor Project, Appelbaum was asked by an attendee for his phone number. He replied, 'that phone was seized. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Elinor Mills |
| |
Title: |
Reporter |
| |
Agency(ies): |
CNET |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/0oyBK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The results of this damage review undercut the testimony of each of the representatives from the OCA for the charge documents in this case. Specifically, the damage assessments concluded that all the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was commonly understood and known due to previous public disclosures. |
| |
Name(s:) |
David Coombs |
| |
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACT releases did not reveal any sensitive intelligence sources or methods. He will also testify that the Department of Defense could not point to anyone in Afghanistan or Iraq harmed due to the documents released by WikiLeaks. He will testify that the Afghanistan and Iraq SIGACTs are simply ground-level field reports that document dated activities which do not disclose sensitive information or our sources and methods. XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] will also testify that the initial public descriptions of the harm to foreign policy due to the publication of diplomatic cables were 'fairly significantly overwrought.' He will also testify that although the disclosures were embarrassing and awkward, they did not represent significant consequences to foreign policy. Finally, XXXXXXXXXX [ROBERT GATES, FORMER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE] will testify that on 29 July 2010, he directed the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) to lead a comprehensive review of the documents allegedly given to WikiLeaks and to coordinate under the Information Review Task Force (IRTF, formerly TF 725) to conduct a complete damage review. He will testify that the damage review confirmed that the alleged leaks represented a low to at best moderate risk to national security. Specifically, that all of the information allegedly leaked was either dated, represented low-level opinions, or was already commonly understood and know due to previous public disclosures. |
| |
Name(s:) |
David Coombs |
| |
Title: |
civilian defense counsel |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
The Secretary also tasked the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency to stand up an Information Review Task Force to assess, in concert with interagency participants, the substance of the data disclosed. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Teresa Takai, Thomas Ferguson |
| |
Title: |
Chief Information Officer, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
Defense Intelligence Agency Information Review Task Force, DIA, IRTF |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
Although outsiders have not been allowed to inspect the 'war room' in suburban Virginia and see its staff at work, national-security officials offered details of the operation to The Daily Beast, including the identity of the counterintelligence expert who has been put in charge: Brig. General Robert A. Carr of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
[...]
Officials say Carr, handpicked for the assignment by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is highly respected among his colleagues at DIA...
[...]
Carr served in Afghanistan for much of last year before his transfer to the DIA in Washington, where he runs the Defense Counterintelligence and Human Intelligence Center. In his battle against Assange, officials say, Carr's central assignment is to try to determine exactly what classified information might have been leaked to WikiLeaks, and then to predict whether its disclosure could endanger American troops in the battlefield, as well as what larger risk it might pose to American foreign policy.
The team has another distinct responsibility: to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.
[...]
Lapan said that, so far, the Pentagon has no evidence to suggest that any Afghan civilians have been harmed by the Taliban as a result of the release of the 76,000 logs this summera bit of good news that, he suggested, might be attributed to the efforts of Carr's team and Central Command to try to protect them. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Philip Shedon |
| |
Title: |
Journalist |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Daily Beast |
|
Concerning: |
Defense Intelligence Agency, Information Review Task Force, DIA, IRTF |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
Marine Colonel David Lapan, a senior Pentagon spokesman, said the leaders of the task force believed they had a strong sense of what is contained in the 15,000 documents that Assange is threatening to release shortly.
'We believe we probably know what's in those,' he said. 'And we believe, again, that they will pose some risk to our forces in Afghanistan and to others.'
[...]
'It was their task to go through that initial release of the 76,000 documents and determine what information in each of them might put either livesor sources and methods, or operational securityat risk,' Lapan said of Carr's operation.
The team's assessments, he said, are passed to the United States Central Command, the military command that oversees American troops in Afghanistan, 'so they can get it out to folks in the field to take whatever steps are necessary' to protect American troops and Afghan civilians whose identities are revealed by the logs. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Dave Lapan |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Concerning: |
Defense Intelligence Agency Information Review Task Force, DIA, IRTF |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Title: |
DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon (November 30, 2010) |
|
Author: |
Public Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Biden: Pakistani Support for Taliban 'In the Past' |
|
Author: |
Lisa Daniel |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q Does the President think that the WikiLeak leak of documents has put Afghan informers at risk?
MR. GIBBS: I would say from General Jones' statement last Sunday, from the President's statement -- and I know while we were out here, the Pentagon has -- Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen are briefing on both that situation and on the meeting today itself -- and I said, we believe that this has the potential to put people -- our troops, those that cooperate with our efforts -- into harm's way.
Q Has it identified any points in the documents where people have been named?
MR. GIBBS: I don't want to get into -- I don't want to get into that level of that detail. I will say this, and I know this is -- I just want to be clear. We did not see any of these documents prior to their being put online. We worked with The New York Times on some questions that they had. They were able to see some of the documents beforehand. And, as I said earlier, I think they handled this story in a responsible way. But I reiterate that we have not -- did not -- and did not see those documents, nor were we contacted about seeing those documents beforehand. Let me give you just a little bit of a broad read-through on what was discussed this afternoon -- or this morning. This was the seventh regular meeting of the group on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The meeting began with an update on the situation in Afghanistan where they discussed the success of the recent Kabul Conference, including the absence of significant security disruptions, and the steps that were announced to move forward on strengthening governance and pursuing reintegration.
General Petraeus gave a security update reviewing the progress that has been made across the country. On Pakistan, the group reviewed the recent strategic dialogue that Secretary Clinton held in Pakistan, while also discussing our continued efforts to support the Pakistani military's actions against violent extremists within its -- within its borders.
Q But just to come back to the WikiLeaks, was the sense in the meeting that there's going to be an operational impact?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I would say that that was the --
Q Due to the leaks, I mean.
MR. GIBBS: I will say this. WikiLeaks was not something that took up any real measurable amount of time in today's meeting. I think each of the principals, including the President, has commented on the operational security risks that 90,000-plus secret documents, classified documents being put on the Internet poses to our troops, poses to those that are cooperating in efforts to make Afghanistan and Pakistan more secure. And we'll go from there.
[...]
Q How is the U.S. attempting to monitor who has read the WikiLeaks in terms of, like, bad guys who you wouldn't want it reading it?
MR. GIBBS: I'd point you to the Pentagon, who also won't answer your question. (Laughter.)
Q On a similar note, is the U.S. or NATO, any NATO partners, in the position of considering offering asylum in any way to some of the cooperating parties in Afghanistan who may now be in trouble?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I don't know if this comes up in Secretary Gates' briefing today, but they may have an answer on that. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Gibbs |
| |
Title: |
Press Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Press Secretary, White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/NSCtq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's absolutely false that WikiLeaks contacted the White House and offered to have them look through the documents,' Marine Corps Col. David Lapan said. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Dave Lapan |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Ekp6s |
|
Title: |
Official Rejects Claim WikiLeaks Offered Document Review |
|
Author: |
Michael Carden |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Army transfers accused intel specialist to MDW |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Public Affairs, Military District of Washington |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Name(s:) |
Lynn Woolsey D-CA |
| |
Title: |
United States Representative |
| |
Agency(ies): |
United States House of Representatives |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/eG5G6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Afghanistan IED animation map 2004-2010 (video) http://bit.ly/9T08r3 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks in the clear, legally http://bit.ly/dA3DB2 | Bloomberg |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Inaccurate, craven US media. Read the comments carefully. http://politi.co/bCojGc |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Gates, who killed thousands in Iraq, Afg and Iran-Contra says we might have 'blood on our hands'. http://cs.pn/azCUtn |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks and the Whitehouse (interview, ABC) http://bit.ly/abqV8G |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Washington Post's objective reporting on fine display again http://bit.ly/c8Spgc |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets CIA official slams poor Afghan raid intelligence which cost civilian lies http://bit.ly/dgQt4Z |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Daniel Ellsberg's WikiLeaks Wish List | WaPo http://bit.ly/9DjXKz |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets India loves WikiLeaks | The Hindu http://bit.ly/9zmXf2 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets Bradley Manning defense fund needs YOU; http://bit.ly/9DyhoR |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets WikiLeaks media analysis (video) | Listening Post http://bit.ly/aTTqcQ |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
WikiLeaks tweets US tries to infiltrate us via bribing supporters at MIT | NYT http://nyti.ms/dbyWk5 |
|
Concerning: |
"WikiLeaks Tweet |
|
|
