|
2010-08-31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When DoD material was leaked in July 2010, we worked with DoD to identify any alleged State Department material that was in WikiLeaks' possession. We immediately asked Chiefs of Mission at affected posts to review any purported State material in the release and provide an assessment, as well as a summary of the overall effect the WikiLeaks release could have on relations with the host country.
Following the completion of the review in August, when it was believed that purported State cables might be released, the State Department instructed all Chiefs of Missions to familiarize themselves with the content in the Net Centric Diplomacy (NCD) database should a release actually occur. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary for Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/a6tRN |
|
Title: |
Statement Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC, March 10, 2011 |
|
Author: |
Patrick Kennedy |
|
Title: |
Under Secretary for Management |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of State |
|
Audience: |
United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs |
|
|
|
2010-08-31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
July 2010
When DoD material was leaked in July 2010, we worked with DoD to identify any alleged State Department material that was in WikiLeaks' possession. We immediately asked Chiefs of Mission at affected posts to review any purported State material in the release and provide an assessment, as well as a summary of the overall effect the WikiLeaks release could have on relations with the host country.
Following the completion of the review in August, when it was believed that purported State cables might be released, the State Department instructed all Chiefs of Missions to familiarize themselves with the content in the Net Centric Diplomacy (NCD) database should a release actually occur. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary for Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/65JxT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should condemn in the most-clear terms the disclosure of any classified information by individuals and organizations which puts the lives of United States' and partner servicemembers and civilians at risk,' she said, 'threatening our national security and the national security of those with whom we are working.' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Hillary Clinton |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of State |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Iraq War Logs |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/8HJGl |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.J. Crowley: Deputy Secretary Jim Steinberg, Under Secretary Bill Burns, the assistant secretaries, ambassadors, we did everything we can to reach out to governments in advance of the anticipated release of these documents. We will be doing follow-up calls during the course of the week.
[...]
P.J. Crowley: We're conscious of the fact that probably the stories that we've seen today are not the last ones to be reported on this subject, so we are going to continue this diplomatic outreach for as long as it takes.
[...]
QUESTION: Is it correct that the State Department has set up sort of a war room or some crisis room or something like that to deal with this?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we as with any major event, whether it's an earthquake on the one hand or something of a global scale like the release of these documents, we have set up a working group or a task force, if you will, and we are in continual contact with our posts around the world, assessing what is happening, reporting back on follow-up conversations that we are having with governments and with members of civil society. We took, we thought, aggressive action in anticipation of the release to warn our contacts of what was coming, and we'll continue to have an ongoing dialogue with them as we manage this.
QUESTION: And is this like a 24/7 type --
MR. CROWLEY: Yeah, we
QUESTION: -- war room sort of thing?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, you've been around the State Department. We frequently put together these kinds of operations when you have crises that are going to endure for a period of time.
QUESTION: P.J., wasn't that task force set up more than a week ago, or aren't there several?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, the preparations were made several days ago when we had an understanding of what was coming. I believe it went into force on Friday. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Phillip J. Crowley |
| |
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Public Affairs, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
WikiLeaks 24/7 Task Force |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/p4IRA |
|
|
November 2010
When the press and WikiLeaks announced that they were going to release purported State cables starting on November 28, 2010, the State Department took the following immediate actions: 1) Established a 24/7 WikiLeaks Working Group composed of senior officials from throughout the Department, notably our regional bureaus; 2) Created a group to review potential risks to individuals; and 3) Suspended SIPRNet access to NCD (SIPRNet is a DOD network).
The Department also created a Mitigation Team to address the policy, legal, security, counterintelligence, and information assurance issues presented by the release of these documents. During this period, the Department kept Congress apprised of both the international fallout caused by the WikiLeaks' disclosure and the steps undertaken to mitigate them. The Department convened two separate briefings for members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate within days (December 2, 2010) of the first disclosure by WikiLeaks and appeared twice before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (December 7 and 9, 2010). |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary for Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/KVW5s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Letter from Harold Hongju Koh to Jennifer Robinson and Julian Assange |
|
Author: |
Harold Hongju Koh |
|
Title: |
Legal Adviser |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of State |
|
Audience: |
Julian Assange, Jennifer Robinson |
|
Concerning: |
"Cablegate |
|
|
Title: |
Harold Hongju Koh |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
LittleSis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mitigation Team to address the policy, legal, security, counterintelligence, and information assurance issues presented by the release of these documents. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary for Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate, WikiLeaks Mitigation Team |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/KVW5s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
November 2010
When the press and WikiLeaks announced that they were going to release purported State cables starting on November 28, 2010, the State Department took the following immediate actions: 1) Established a 24/7 WikiLeaks Working Group composed of senior officials from throughout the Department, notably our regional bureaus; 2) Created a group to review potential risks to individuals; and 3) Suspended SIPRNet access to NCD (SIPRNet is a DOD network).
The Department also created a Mitigation Team to address the policy, legal, security, counterintelligence, and information assurance issues presented by the release of these documents. During this period, the Department kept Congress apprised of both the international fallout caused by the WikiLeaks' disclosure and the steps undertaken to mitigate them. The Department convened two separate briefings for members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate within days (December 2, 2010) of the first disclosure by WikiLeaks and appeared twice before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (December 7 and 9, 2010). |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary for Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/KVW5s |
|
|
Department has suspended access to the Net Centric Diplomacy (NCD) database of diplomatic reporting , and its classified 'ClassNet' web sites and SharePoint sites previously accessible through the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), while retaining access via the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Press Secretary, White House |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/M1g6Q |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon. Do we have enough room in here? I want to take a moment to discuss the recent news reports of classified documents that were illegally provided from United States Government computers. In my conversations with counterparts from around the world over the past few days, and in my meeting earlier today with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey, I have had very productive discussions on this issue.
The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. This Administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America's national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy, to thwarting international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to advancing human rights and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims.
So let's be clear: this disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.
I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama Administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. The President and I have made these partnerships a priority and we are proud of the progress that they have helped achieve and they will remain at the center of our efforts.
I will not comment on or confirm what are alleged to be stolen State Department cables. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats' personal assessments and observations. I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington. Our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statements and our actions around the world.
I would also add that to the American people and to our friends and partners, I want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information. I have directed that specific actions be taken at the State Department, in addition to new security safeguards at the Department of Defense and elsewhere to protect State Department information so that this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again.
Relations between governments aren't the only concern created by the publication of this material. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside of governments who offer their own candid insights. These conversations also depend on trust and confidence. For example, if an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person's identity could have serious repercussions: imprisonment, torture, even death.
So whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others.
Now, I am aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight: There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends.
There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoings or misdeeds. This is not one of those cases. In contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. They are helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start. They are working hard every day to solve serious practical problems to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability. This is the role that America plays in the world. This is the role our diplomats play in serving America. And it should make every one of us proud.
The work of our diplomats doesn't just benefit Americans, but also billions of others around the globe. In addition to endangering particular individuals, disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government.
People of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communications, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest. Every country, including the United States, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. And every country, including the United States, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern. I know that diplomats around the world share this view but this is not unique to diplomacy. In almost every profession whether it's law or journalism, finance or medicine or academia or running a small business people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it. And so despite some of the rhetoric we've heard these past few days, confidential communications do not run counter to the public interest. They are fundamental to our ability to serve the public interest.
In America, we welcome genuine debates about pressing questions of public policy. We have elections about them. That is one of the greatest strengths of our democracy. It is part of who we are and it is a priority for this Administration. But stealing confidential documents and then releasing them without regard for the consequences does not serve the public good, and it is not the way to engage in a healthy debate.
In the past few days, I have spoken with many of my counterparts around the world, and we have all agreed that we will continue to focus on the issues and tasks at hand. In that spirit, President Obama and I remain committed to productive cooperation with our partners as we seek to build a better, more prosperous world for all.
Thank you, and I'd be glad to take a few questions.
MR. CROWLEY: We'll begin with Charlie Wolfson of CBS in his last week here covering the State Department.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Where are you going, Charlie?
QUESTION: I'll (inaudible) into the sunset, but let me get to a question.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, sir. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Madam Secretary, are you embarrassed by these leaks personally, professionally? And what harm have the leaks done to the U.S. so far that you can determine from talking to your colleagues?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Charlie, as I said in my statement, and based on the many conversations that I've had with my counterparts, I am confident that the partnerships and relationships that we have built in this Administration will withstand this challenge. The President and I have made these partnerships a priority, a real centerpiece of our foreign policy, and we're proud of the progress that we have made over the last 22 months.
Every single day, U.S. Government representatives from the entire government, not just from the State Department, engage with hundreds if not thousands of government representatives and members of civil society from around the world. They carry out the goals and the interests and the values of the United States. And it is imperative that we have candid reporting from those who are in the field working with their counterparts in order to inform our decision-making back here in Washington.
I can tell you that in my conversations, at least one of my counterparts said to me, 'Well, don't worry about it. You should see what we say about you.' (Laughter.) So I think that t |
| |
Name(s:) |
Hillary Clinton |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of State |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Ro0gP |
|
Title: |
State Department Briefing, Nov 29, 2010 |
|
Author: |
Hillary Clinton |
|
Title: |
Secretary of State |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
"Cablegate |
|
|
Title: |
Clinton: WikiLeaks' Release Attacks International Community |
|
Author: |
Jim Garamone, Lisa Daniel |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Reuters |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
November 2010
When the press and WikiLeaks announced that they were going to release purported State cables starting on November 28, 2010, the State Department took the following immediate actions: 1) Established a 24/7 WikiLeaks Working Group composed of senior officials from throughout the Department, notably our regional bureaus; 2) Created a group to review potential risks to individuals; and 3) Suspended SIPRNet access to NCD (SIPRNet is a DOD network).
The Department also created a Mitigation Team to address the policy, legal, security, counterintelligence, and information assurance issues presented by the release of these documents. During this period, the Department kept Congress apprised of both the international fallout caused by the WikiLeaks' disclosure and the steps undertaken to mitigate them. The Department convened two separate briefings for members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate within days (December 2, 2010) of the first disclosure by WikiLeaks and appeared twice before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (December 7 and 9, 2010). |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary of Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/f52sa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Reuters |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
November 2010
When the press and WikiLeaks announced that they were going to release purported State cables starting on November 28, 2010, the State Department took the following immediate actions: 1) Established a 24/7 WikiLeaks Working Group composed of senior officials from throughout the Department, notably our regional bureaus; 2) Created a group to review potential risks to individuals; and 3) Suspended SIPRNet access to NCD (SIPRNet is a DOD network).
The Department also created a Mitigation Team to address the policy, legal, security, counterintelligence, and information assurance issues presented by the release of these documents. During this period, the Department kept Congress apprised of both the international fallout caused by the WikiLeaks' disclosure and the steps undertaken to mitigate them. The Department convened two separate briefings for members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate within days (December 2, 2010) of the first disclosure by WikiLeaks and appeared twice before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (December 7 and 9, 2010). |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary of Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/f52sa |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...The deplorable WikiLeaks disclosures put innocent lives at risk and damage US national security interests. And to what purpose?
WikiLeaks styles itself a whistleblowing organization. This is not whistleblowing. There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people. There is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations on which our common security depends.
But it is central to diplomacy, and this breach in confidentiality even if it did not come from the state department shows a disregard for the wellbeing of countless individuals.
Who are these individuals? They are human rights activists, journalists, faith leaders and civil society representatives. They are politicians, government officials, candidates for office, community leaders and volunteers. They are academics, think tank representatives, students. They are business leaders, inventors, scientists. In fact they are people from every walk of life around the world who engage with US diplomats in good faith every day.
Our diplomats use these encounters to observe and gauge developments abroad, and present and defend the US view, all the while looking for common ground on difficult issues. Their frank assessments of people, policies and action the raw material of diplomacy inform the policies decided by the president and the secretary of state. Nothing, even in an age of Wikipedia and global news, can replace informed observers reporting from the field.
WikiLeaks seems indifferent to the damage it has caused to these relationships. We cannot be so sanguine. There is too much work that needs to be done for us to be sidetracked. Reinvigorating America's relationships around the world has been a top priority of president Obama and secretary Clinton. That will not change. We will not alter our commitment to working with our friends and allies on building a more peaceful and prosperous world.
A world in which diplomats cannot operate with discretion and trust is a more dangerous world for all of us. We are improving our systems to protect the confidential information that is essential to US diplomacy. We will hold accountable those who are responsible for the compromise that led to these disclosures.
And as US diplomats work on the many pressing issues before us, central to those efforts will be our uniquely productive, close and strong relationship with the UK. I appreciate the support given us by prime minister Cameron, his government, the diplomatic community and others. The prime minister says these reckless disclosures have not changed the 'fundamentals' of the special relationship. I couldn't agree more. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Louis Susman |
| |
Title: |
United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/2bbiB |
|
Title: |
Louis B Susman, Banker and a lawyer; US Ambassador to the UK |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
LittleSis |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, shortly after stories about the cables first began to appear in the media, State Department officials were already privately playing down the damage, the two congressional officials said. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Reuters |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
November 2010
When the press and WikiLeaks announced that they were going to release purported State cables starting on November 28, 2010, the State Department took the following immediate actions: 1) Established a 24/7 WikiLeaks Working Group composed of senior officials from throughout the Department, notably our regional bureaus; 2) Created a group to review potential risks to individuals; and 3) Suspended SIPRNet access to NCD (SIPRNet is a DOD network).
The Department also created a Mitigation Team to address the policy, legal, security, counterintelligence, and information assurance issues presented by the release of these documents. During this period, the Department kept Congress apprised of both the international fallout caused by the WikiLeaks' disclosure and the steps undertaken to mitigate them. The Department convened two separate briefings for members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate within days (December 2, 2010) of the first disclosure by WikiLeaks and appeared twice before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (December 7 and 9, 2010). |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary of Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/f52sa |
|
|
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, executive, briefing on Update on WikiLeaks Unauthorized Disclosures, 1 p.m., 304HVC. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
United States Government Printing Office |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States Government Printing Office |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We consider this reporting from posts around the world to be one of our most valuable contributions to every facet of national security, and we share this diplomatic reporting through automatic dissemination to over 65 agencies based on profiled requirements these agencies provide to the Department. Recent events have not changed our commitment to sharing this vital information.
WikiLeaks Disclosures and State Department Mitigation Actions
July 2010
When DoD material was leaked in July 2010, we worked with DoD to identify any alleged State Department material that was in WikiLeaks' possession. We immediately asked Chiefs of Mission at affected posts to review any purported State material in the release and provide an assessment, as well as a summary of the overall effect the WikiLeaks release could have on relations with the host country.
Following the completion of the review in August, when it was believed that purported State cables might be released, the State Department instructed all Chiefs of Missions to familiarize themselves with the content in the Net Centric Diplomacy (NCD) database should a release actually occur.
[_]
November 2010
When the press and WikiLeaks announced that they were going to release purported State cables starting on November 28, 2010, the State Department took the following immediate actions: 1) Established a 24/7 WikiLeaks Working Group composed of senior officials from throughout the Department, notably our regional bureaus; 2) Created a group to review potential risks to individuals; and 3) Suspended SIPRNet access to NCD (SIPRNet is a DOD network).
The Department also created a Mitigation Team to address the policy, legal, security, counterintelligence, and information assurance issues presented by the release of these documents. During this period, the Department kept Congress apprised of both the international fallout caused by the WikiLeaks' disclosure and the steps undertaken to mitigate them. The Department convened two separate briefings for members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate within days (December 2, 2010) of the first disclosure by WikiLeaks and appeared twice before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (December 7 and 9, 2010).
[_]
Ongoing Mitigation Efforts
State continues its thorough review of policies and procedures related to information security to ensure that they fully meet the current challenges. Efforts are being coordinated throughout the Department, as well as with the interagency, to ensure that we share classified information in an effective and secure manner with those who need it in their work to advance our national security.
While the Department already had strong safeguards in place, we have further enhanced and updated our computer security policies that prohibit the downloading of classified information to removable media (e.g., thumb drives, CDs/DVDs) on the Department's classified network. The Department continues to deploy an automated tool that audits and monitors the Department's classified network to detect anomalies that would not otherwise be apparent. This capability is backed up by professional staff who promptly analyze detected anomalies to ensure that they do not represent threats to the system.
The NCD database of diplomatic reporting and the State Department's classified web sites, although now inaccessible through SIPRNet, remains available via the more limited distribution Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS). Throughout, the State Department has continued to share its diplomatic reporting among federal agencies through its traditional system of cable dissemination.
To heighten awareness of what is and is not permitted when working on the Department's classified network and on classified systems, user awareness reminders are now available for Department employees on its classified network, in addition to the standard in-person briefings about handling classified material and a soon-to-be-released computer-based course on identifying and marking classified and sensitive information.
In addition, the Department is exploring solutions to improve how we share and protect information with those who are not direct recipients of our telegrams. One such solution would involve the creation of a website with a searchable database that would allow appropriately cleared personnel to use key word searches to discover relevant State cables; the search would reveal cable metadata, such as the subject line, but would not provide the full text of the cables in a potentially vulnerable database. This would ensure that cleared personnel are aware of cables they have an operational or strategic need to see. Cleared personnel from other agencies would then be able to seek cables necessary for their work functions through their own organization's internal distribution system. The responsibility will be on the receiving, not the originating, agency to disseminate information to its internal personnel.
The Department has continued to work with the interagency on information management issues by participating in meetings of the new Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) chaired by the Special Advisor for Information Access and Security policy as well as existing IPCs such as the Information Sharing and Access IPC. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Patrick Kennedy |
| |
Title: |
Under Secretary for Management |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/OfVrA |
|
|
On August 12, 2010, immediately following the first release of documents, the Secretary of Defense commissioned two internal DoD studies. The first study, led by the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)), directed a review of DoD information security policy. The second study, led by the Joint Staff, focused on procedures for handling classified information in forward deployed areas. 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.
Results of the two studies revealed a number of findings, including the following:
Forward deployed units maintained an over-reliance on removable electronic storage media.
Roles and responsibilities for detecting and dealing with an insider threat must be better defined.
Processes for reporting security incidents need improvement. Limited capability currently exists to detect and monitor anomalous behavior on classified computer networks.
Once the studies were concluded and the results reported to the Secretary, the Department began working to address the findings and improve its overall security posture to mitigate the possibility of another similar type of disclosure. Some of this work was already planned or underway. For other findings, like the issue of removable media, new initiatives had to be immediately implemented. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Teresa Takai, Thomas Ferguson |
| |
Title: |
Chief Information Officer, Principal Deputy Undersecretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/OfVrA |
|
|
As the IC Information Sharing Executive (IC ISE), my main focus today concerns classified information - and, in particular, information that is derived from intelligence sources and menthols, or information that is reflected in the analytic judgements and assessments that the IC produces. I want to be clear, though, that our concern for the protection of information is not restricted to the fragility of sources and methods, but extends as well to broader aspects of national security. We recognize, and will hear today, that the Departments of State and Defense, as well as other federal agencies, themselves originate classified national security information that is vital to the protection of our nation and conduct of our foreign relations,a and this information, widely distributed, and used throughout the government to achieve these objectives. As we have seen recently, the unauthorized disclosure of any form of classified national security information has serious implications for the policy and operational aspects of national security. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Corin Stone |
| |
Title: |
Intelligence Community Information Sharing Executive |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Director of National Intelligence |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/OfVrA |
|
|
In the five years since Congress directed the creation of the Information Sharing environment, significant steps have been taken towards establishing a string foundations. Important mission initiatives, such as the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, and core capabilities and enablers, such as the National Network of Fusion Centers and the National Information Exchange Model, have produced results and show ongoing promise_
The WikiLeaks breach is not principally an information sharing problem; at its root a bad actor allegedly violated the trust placed in him. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Paul Kshemendra |
| |
Title: |
Program Manager for the Information Environment |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Office of the Director of National Intelligence |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/OfVrA |
|
|
Takai told Senate members that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates immediately called for two internal studies to review the department's information security policy and to unveil how classified information is handled in forward-deployed areas. The results showed that forward-deployed units had an 'over-reliance' on using removable electronic storage media, Takai said. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Terri Moon Crunk |
| |
Agency(ies): |
American Forces Press Service, Department of Defense |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/4DMyk |
|
Title: |
Information Sharing and WikiLeaks |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
C-SPAN |
|
|
Title: |
Information Sharing in the Era of WikiLeaks: Balancing Security and Collaboration |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
Title: |
Congressional Record |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States Government Printing Office |
|
|
Title: |
Congressional Record |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States Government Printing Office |
|
|
Title: |
Congressional Record |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
United States Government Printing Office |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Title: |
Public Schedule for March 16, 2011 |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of State |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: India and WikiLeaks.
MR. TONER: Mm-hmm.
QUESTION: Apparently, well, the Indian media is in an uproar over a WikiLeaks cable from July 2008 in which it details that a U.S. diplomat was aware of alleged bribery operations ahead of a key confidence vote in the Indian parliament. Does the U.S. condone such open corruption in other governments?
MR. TONER: Okay, specifically about WikiLeaks --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR. TONER: Our policy throughout has been not to comment on the substance of allegedly classified material. And --
QUESTION: (Inaudible) classified (inaudible) leaked?
MR. TONER: Well, it's allegedly classified. We don't we're not I'm not going to say it's classified or not. But it certainly if it is classified, we wouldn't speak about it, and we're not going to speak about it in any way, shape, or form.
To your broader question about corruption in government, of course the United States is always for greater transparency in governments throughout the world because transparency in governments leads to better political systems that are able to help the people that they represent. So, I mean, more broadly, we deal with corruption issues throughout in many countries throughout the world. And that's an important part of our assistance efforts to many countries in the world. But specifically, what pertains to India, I really can't speak to that. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mark Toner |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/DmkZz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Does the U.S. ambassador in Mexico, Carlos Pascual, does he still have your confidence after the WikiLeaks scandals?
(In Spanish.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I deeply regret the WikiLeaks situation, and I've told President Calderon that. But I do really appreciate what Ambassador Pascual has done in his time as our ambassador because he's worked closely with many parts of the Mexican Government. We are close friends and partners with Mexico but we don't always agree on everything, as no two countries do. And so I'm going to continue to really support the important work that's being done, and it will be up to the ambassador to determine how effective he can be going forward |
| |
Name(s:) |
Hillary Clinton |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of State |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/DNxRy |
|
|
QUESTION: You know there's been a flare-up on the WikiLeaks issue because the president has expressed very little confidence in the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico. Is he going to be there? Do you have confidence in the U.S. Ambassador? (Speaking in Spanish.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this was a very unfortunate situation. I spoke personally with President Calderon about it and expressed our regret. But at the same time, the Ambassador has been very instrumental in working to make sure that the United States Government responded to the Mexican needs. I think the Ambassador will make an assessment as to whether or not he can continue to be as helpful as he has been in the past' |
| |
Name(s:) |
Hillary Clinton |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of State |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/r1xFz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Can we switch to Mexico?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Ambassador Carlos Pascual. You have announced that the Ambassador Carlos Pascual, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, have resigned. Is he another victim, high-profile victim of WikiLeaks?
MR. TONER: He made a personal decision. He, I believe, said in his statement that he didn't want to be a distraction to what is one of our most important bilateral relationships. He enjoyed all along the support of the Secretary and, obviously, the President. We feel he accomplished a great deal in his role, but he made the decision that he didn't want to impede this important relationship. I'm not going to characterize it in any way whatsoever. It's really his decision.
QUESTION: Is he going to be doing something else at the State Department? According to the press release, he was going to come and perform some other duties within the State Department. Can you share something about --
MR. TONER: I believe that's what the statement said. I don't have any more details at this time.
QUESTION: And do you expect any other maybe other governments to complain because the ambassador because of the reports of WikiLeaks and perhaps face similar situations?
MR. TONER: We've said all along that it's a difficult time for us. It's going to make our work more difficult. But at the same time, we demand or we ask that our embassies rather provide us with candid assessments, and that's going to continue.
Go ahead. And then --
QUESTION: Did (inaudible) dissuade him from resigning?
MR. TONER: I would just say that he enjoyed the support of the Secretary and the President all along during his tenure.
Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Can you tell us, do you have an idea when he made official, transmitted his decision to Secretary Clinton?
MR. TONER: The first part of your question again?
QUESTION: Can you tell us when he made official or transmitted his decision to Secretary Clinton?
MR. TONER: On March 19th.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Let's say have you taken us steps --
MR. TONER: Can we just (laughter.) That's okay.
QUESTION: -- for the future? I mean, what are you telling the other governments now for the future, that WikiLeaks-like things will not happen?
MR. TONER: I'm not sure I know how to answer that, Goyal.
QUESTION: I mean --
MR. TONER: I'm sorry. WikiLeaks --
QUESTION: That WikiLeaks took place, now what are you telling to the governments now, that no more in the future something like this will happen? Or how are you protecting the information?
MR. TONER: That's a broader topic for discussion. And we're obviously taking measures that to protect our classified information in light of WikiLeaks.
[...]
QUESTION: -- the Hindu newspaper in India is coming out with a WikiLeaks publication, the last one week. Has there been any high-level contact between the U.S. and India after that on those issues?
MR. TONER: Not that I'm aware of. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mark Toner |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/EQcSf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Can we switch to Mexico?
MR. TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Ambassador Carlos Pascual. You have announced that the Ambassador Carlos Pascual, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, have resigned. Is he another victim, high-profile victim of WikiLeaks?
MR. TONER: He made a personal decision. He, I believe, said in his statement that he didn't want to be a distraction to what is one of our most important bilateral relationships. He enjoyed all along the support of the Secretary and, obviously, the President. We feel he accomplished a great deal in his role, but he made the decision that he didn't want to impede this important relationship. I'm not going to characterize it in any way whatsoever. It's really his decision.
QUESTION: Is he going to be doing something else at the State Department? According to the press release, he was going to come and perform some other duties within the State Department. Can you share something about --
MR. TONER: I believe that's what the statement said. I don't have any more details at this time.
QUESTION: And do you expect any other maybe other governments to complain because the ambassador because of the reports of WikiLeaks and perhaps face similar situations?
MR. TONER: We've said all along that it's a difficult time for us. It's going to make our work more difficult. But at the same time, we demand or we ask that our embassies rather provide us with candid assessments, and that's going to continue.
Go ahead. And then --
QUESTION: Did (inaudible) dissuade him from resigning?
MR. TONER: I would just say that he enjoyed the support of the Secretary and the President all along during his tenure.
Go ahead, in the back.
QUESTION: Can you tell us, do you have an idea when he made official, transmitted his decision to Secretary Clinton?
MR. TONER: The first part of your question again?
QUESTION: Can you tell us when he made official or transmitted his decision to Secretary Clinton?
MR. TONER: On March 19th.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Let's say have you taken us steps --
MR. TONER: Can we just (laughter.) That's okay.
QUESTION: -- for the future? I mean, what are you telling the other governments now for the future, that WikiLeaks-like things will not happen?
MR. TONER: I'm not sure I know how to answer that, Goyal.
QUESTION: I mean --
MR. TONER: I'm sorry. WikiLeaks --
QUESTION: That WikiLeaks took place, now what are you telling to the governments now, that no more in the future something like this will happen? Or how are you protecting the information?
MR. TONER: That's a broader topic for discussion. And we're obviously taking measures that to protect our classified information in light of WikiLeaks.
[...]
QUESTION: -- the Hindu newspaper in India is coming out with a WikiLeaks publication, the last one week. Has there been any high-level contact between the U.S. and India after that on those issues?
MR. TONER: Not that I'm aware of. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mark Toner |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/EQcSf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On April 5, 2011, the Government of Ecuador declared the United States Ambassador to Ecuador, Heather M. Hodges, persona non grata under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, citing alleged confidential cables released to the public by WikiLeaks. On April 7, the U.S. Government took reciprocal action, informing Ecuador's Ambassador to the United States, Luis Benigno Gallegos Chiriboga, of the decision to declare him persona non grata under Article 9(1) of the Vienna Convention. Ecuador's new Ambassador to the United States, Nathalie Cely, took office in December 2011. The U.S. Ambassador-designate to Ecuador, Adam Namm, awaits confirmation by the U.S. Senate. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Bureau of Western Affairs, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/t6RGX |
|
|
Ecuador's government said Tuesday that it was expelling the United States ambassador, Heather M. Hodges, over comments made public in a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks in which Ms. Hodges referred to high-level police corruption in Ecuador and possible knowledge of it by the president.
Ms. Hodges recommended in a cable dated July 10, 2009 and published Monday by the Spanish newspaper El Pais that the United States revoke a visa for Jaime Aquilino Hurtado, the national police commander who served from April 2008 to June 2009.
In the cable, she discussed multiple reports of illegal activities by Mr. Aquilino Hurtado, including his possible involvement in schemes to extort bribes from a taxi union, steal public funds and ease trafficking of undocumented Chinese immigrants.
In a particularly sensitive part of the cable, Ms. Hodges noted that 'some Embassy officials believe that President Correa must have been aware of them when he made the appointment' of Mr. Aquilino Hurtado.
'These observers believe that Correa may have wanted to have an ENP chief whom he could easily manipulate,' said Ms. Hodges, using the initials for the Ecuadorean National Police. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Simon Romero |
| |
Title: |
Reporter |
| |
Agency(ies): |
New York Times |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/dyLju |
|
|
Excerpt from the U.S. State Department Press Briefing:
MR. TONER: Just briefly at the top I know some of you were asking me via email and others in the Press Office our Embassy did today receive official communication through appropriate diplomatic channels that the Ecuadorian Government has declared Ambassador Heather Hodges persona non grata. Ambassador Hodges is one of our most experienced and talented diplomats and the Department considers her expulsion unjustified. And we deeply regret the Ecuadorian Government took it. The Department will examine its options to respond to this Ecuadorian action.
With that, I'll take your questions.
QUESTION: What kind of options?
MR. TONER: You're aware of the I think well aware of some of the options. We've literally just received this news.
QUESTION: Well, enlighten me again.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Are all options on the table? (Laughter.)
MR. TONER: Okay. You're you've we've been down this road in other cases and we're all aware of some of the options. Again, I don't want to get into details. We're evaluating our options. We literally just received this news before coming I did before coming down here, so --
QUESTION: All right. I did notice --
MR. TONER: -- it's still very early.
QUESTION: -- that the Ecuadorian Government has recently either reopened or announced plans to open consulates in New Orleans, which I think has been reopened now after Katrina, and to open one in Phoenix. Is this the kind of thing that you would look at --
MR. TONER: I don't I really --
QUESTION: -- in terms of rescinding their permission? I mean, apparently, they're eager to have branch offices in this country even at the same time as they're expelling your ambassador. Is that the kind of thing that could be looked at and --
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: -- as well as just the straight-out reciprocal action?
MR. TONER: Again, there's a number of options we can take. We just received this news, so it's really premature for me to be speculating on what actions we might take.
QUESTION: All right.
MR. TONER: She's again, Ambassador Hodges is one of our most experienced diplomats, and we deeply regret her expulsion.
QUESTION: Did the diplomatic note say why she was being PNGed?
MR. TONER: It did not. Actually, it did not specify.
QUESTION: All right. Without getting into the reasons that may or may not have been behind the expulsion, do you have concerns about corruption in Ecuador's police force?
MR. TONER: I think that well, Matt, it's a fair question. I believe that we have corruption concerns in a number of countries. Corruption is never is always a corrosive factor in many democracies. And we're going to candidly assess that kind of corruption where we see it, but I don't want to specifically address that issue.
QUESTION: Well, do you is I'm sorry, Ecuador, are you concerned about corruption in Ecuador's police force?
MR. TONER: Again, this is something that we would talk about in our Human Rights Report. I don't have specific information for you on that. I can look into it.
QUESTION: Mark, can you confirm that it was because of a WikiLeaks document?
MR. TONER: Again, we received no official reason for her PNG.
QUESTION: Did you get any official I mean, it's surely, you will have asked. Do you get did you get any unofficial explanation for it?
MR. TONER: Well, Arshad, again, we've seen various press reports and other public comments that did link it to that, but I can't speculate.
QUESTION: And do you think if it is linked to that, do you think this is a justified action?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I don't want to talk about the contents of allegedly classified material, but speaking more broadly about the issue, our diplomats overseas conduct vital work in informing our policy decisions back in Washington. We believe that their assessments need to be candid and need to be classified in many cases. And it's always difficult when we lose those kinds of channels.
QUESTION: Well, Mark --
MR. TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- I'm just confused about one thing. After the sentence that says, 'Ambassador Hodges is one of our finest,' whatever that line is, what's the next sentence?
MR. TONER: 'We consider her expulsion unjustified.'
QUESTION: Well, if they didn't give you a reason, how do you know it's unjustified?
MR. TONER: Well --
QUESTION: I mean, how can you come to a judgment that it's unjustified if you don't know what the reason for it is?
MR. TONER: Well, Matt, again, we believe she's doing stellar work and that there is no reason for or justification for her expulsion.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but presumably, if you're saying that it is unjustified, that there is some reason that you don't accept for her that they've made either publicly or privately to you?
MR. TONER: Well, again, I referred what I answered to Arshad I referred to some of the public comments that we've seen. But certainly, we believe she's doing good work and there's no reason for her to be a persona non grata.
QUESTION: Change topic?
MR. TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: Just one more on this?
MR. TONER: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Up to now, how would you assess relations with Ecuador?
MR. TONER: I think they're on good standing. It's one of our key allies in the region and we want to take that relationship forward. And we deeply regret this incident and the impact it's going to have |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mark Toner |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/baIdK |
|
|
The U.S. has suspended its dialogue with Ecuador and declared its Ambassador to the US as persona non grata in retaliation of a similar action by government of Ecuador.
'Assistant Secretary (of State, Arturo) Valenzuela called in Ambassador (Luis) Gallegos at 10:30 this morning and informed him of our decision to declare him persona non grata. I believe he's required to depart the United States as soon as possible,' State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.
'The unjustified action of the Ecuadorian Government in declaring (US) Ambassador (to Ecuador) Hodges persona non grata left us no other option than this reciprocal action. I believe we said when I announced Ambassador Hodges was declared persona non grata, I said we were considering actions, and this is one of those,' Mr. Toner said.
'We are also suspending the bilateral dialogue which had been scheduled for June,' the State Department spokesman said.
We are interested in a positive relationship with Ecuador, but the regrettable and unwarranted decision to declare Ambassador Hodges persona non grata is going to be taken into account as we move forward in the relationship, he added. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Hindu |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Mz2O5 |
|
Title: |
09QUITO572 |
|
Author: |
Heather Hodges |
|
Title: |
United States Ambassador to Ecuador |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Embassy Quito, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
"Cablegate, Ecuador |
|
|
|
Archive Link |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government banned the importation of foreign media when they were considered to undermine the sanctity of the nation or public order. For example, throughout the week of December 14, the government blocked the distribution of leading international newspapers Al-Quds Al-Arabi, El Pais, and Le Monde for printing Wikileaks-related articles critical of the government. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Group |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/r91tc |
|
|
2011-06-30 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Bradley Manning's trial begins tomorrow. I'm wondering if you have any thought ' this building has any thoughts on that? Or, more broadly, just on the impact ' the negative impact, how bad the impact was from the WikiLeaks disclosures.
MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the trial, it's now a law enforcement matter, so I'm obviously not going to comment on it when the issue's in the courts. With regard to the impact of WikiLeaks, we were quite clear at the time, and we remain clear, that it was very ' a very bad thing.
QUESTION: Can I ask, following that ' at the time you ' this building voiced some serious concerns about the effect it might have on sources and methods and, in particular, a number of human rights activists around the world who've spoken to embassy officials. Can you speak to the overall impact now, several months later, that you've seen from the disclosure of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Well, beyond saying, Kirit, that you know that we stood up a cell in this building to work with individuals who were concerned about their security and we've made good progress in trying to help some of these individuals, I think I won't go into a broad, aggregate effort to, sort of, quantify this. But we were concerned and we have taken measures to try to help those who have been concerned about government --
QUESTION: And do you think those measures have been effective?
MS. NULAND: In a number of cases, we've been able to be quite effective.
QUESTION: And have there been any cases in which you feel that somebody's still at risk?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think it won't help the people involved for me to go any deeper on this issue.
QUESTION: Okay. And my last question will be just the diplomatic impact, just following on Matt's question, if you could speak to that at all. I mean, that was a subject at the Secretary's meetings for months after the initial release --
MS. NULAND: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- I mean, have ' are you guys still reeling from that, or is that kind of patched up for the most part?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Secretary spent a good amount of time ' I would argue months ' working with and reassuring governments around the world and rebuilding trust. And her personal involvement in that, along with the President's, was absolutely key to getting ourselves back to strong positions with some of our interlocutors around the world.
QUESTION: And you do feel that you've reached that point? In other words, where things have patched up?
MS. NULAND: Well, look, I'm not in a position to qualify/quantify, but I would say that we have not had continued representations about WikiLeaks over the past six, seven months. So --
[*****] QUESTION: But there have been some kind of tactical changes, I mean, right ' of some diplomats not being able to take notes in certain meetings, or like meetings being restricted? I mean there have been practical effects since then, wouldn't you say?
MS. NULAND: Well, we've obviously taken steps both on the strategic level and --
QUESTION: Well, and host governments also have on you, haven't they?
MS. NULAND: I don't think that you can necessarily make a direct link. I mean, in diplomatic conversations, sometimes it's appropriate to have small meetings, and sometimes it's appropriate to have bigger delegation meetings. Obviously, individual governments have made their own policy decisions, but more importantly, this building and this government, broadly, has taken steps to address some of the issues that allowed the WikiLeaks thing to happen in the first place.
QUESTION: Can you be a little bit more specific about when you say 'It was a very bad thing'? Because it sounds as though from one of your answers to Kirit is that this has pretty much blown over now. And in the light of that, I wonder how difficult it's going to be for the Administration to make the case that this was, in fact, as damaging as you claim it was ' or as you claimed it was at the time.
MS. NULAND: Again, this is now a legal case. The case will be made by the lawyers, and I'm not going to get in the middle of it.
QUESTION: No, I understand. But can you be a little bit ' I mean, 'It was a very bad thing,' is not particularly enlightening.
MS. NULAND: Matt, we spoke extensively at the time about the damage to America's reputation, about the damage to individual ' individuals who had been open and honest with us, about the risks with regard to trust that are essential for diplomacy. And as I said, the Secretary, the President had to spend many months reassuring governments afterwards. I can't quantify the residual impact standing here today. But what's most important is that this case is now in the U.S. courts --
QUESTION: No. It's in the military courts.
MS. NULAND: -- and that he will face justice. Yeah. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate, WikiLeaks 24/7 Task Force, WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Group, WikiLeaks Mitigation Team |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/hgq1b |
|
Title: |
Daily Press Briefing - December 15, 2011 |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: Yeah. I think the Indians, first of all, are concerned sometimes about some of the kinds of equipment that we sell Pakistan, to help Pakistan meet its legitimate defense needs. They worry that some of that equipment could be used against India. We reassure them that we have quite strict end use requirements on these various platforms and equipment. So that's something that again we have a regular and continuing conversation about.
But broadly speaking, as I said earlier, they like we understand that it's in our interest to try to help Pakistan right now, and help Pakistan to confront the huge range of challenges that it faces. And it does them and it does us no good to sort of stand back and disengage. It's very very important to try to help.
In the Indian's case, of course they still have some quite important concerns about groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and others. But they've made the judgment it's best to try to do that by talking to them rather than by lecturing them using megaphone diplomacy.
QUESTION: Do they see it as a conflict if the U.S. is still engaged with Pakistan?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: They do. Very much so. If there's been any positive side to WikiLeaks it's been that they've seen from all the cables that have been released that we actually do have quite a strong and sincere dialogue with the Pakistanis on a lot of these issues that are of concern to India.
QUESTION: The Indian attitude towards the U.S. disengagement in Afghanistan?
ASSISTANT SECRETARY BLAKE: They hope we don't disengage. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Blake |
| |
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/B7Fe3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Pakistan grants CIA permission to search bin Ladin compound ' can you confirm that?
MR. TONER: No.
QUESTION: I just wanted to follow an earlier question on U.S., Pakistan military. Also WikiLeaks, if you have seen reports in the last few days, they are saying that whatever money you've been spending on bringing Pakistani journalists to train in the U.S, they've been preaching, actually, to the officials back home in Pakistan anti-U.S.
MR. TONER: I'm not going to comment on the substance of those cables. Our exchange programs are above board and are reputable and are a wonderful opportunity for us to expose, for example, these journalists but other professions to the American system and how, for example in this case, journalism works. But I'm not going to speak to the contents of a Wiki cable. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mark Toner |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/LD58V |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: What's the ' what's your latest understanding of the situation in Syria? Have you heard from the Turkish foreign minister about his trip?
MS. NULAND: As you know, the Secretary and Minister Davutoglu spoke the other day before he went in to Syria. We are expecting them to speak again when the foreign minister has finished his consultations, but we haven't yet had that call. I think the meetings are ongoing on the ground in Syria now.
QUESTION: That's not scheduled, then? It's basically whenever he finishes?
MS. NULAND: Right.
QUESTION: Do you expect that today?
MS. NULAND: Unclear whether they will speak today, but they will speak as soon as he has completed his round.
QUESTION: In his conversations so far, apparently, President Asad has said that they will not relent in going after terrorists. What do ' do you make anything of that?
MS. NULAND: We've seen the same press reports you have. It is deeply regrettable that President Asad does not seem to be hearing the increasingly loud voice of the international community, a voice of concern that is now growing in strength, in volume, and in number of countries making their views known. I would note in particular that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had a very strong statement yesterday abhorring the violence and calling on the regime for change. We've also seen the statement of the GCC and the Arab League. So the pressure on Asad is growing. The concern is that he is not listening.
QUESTION: Are you ' you're referring to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Which was, I think, Sunday.
MS. NULAND: That's right.
QUESTION: Not yesterday.
MS. NULAND: That's right.
QUESTION: Are you aware of King Abdullah ' of the other King Abdullah has said anything? He's a bit closer to the action.
MS. NULAND: I'm not aware. We'll check for you what we've seen. But I was ' just now I was referring to Saudi Arabia.
QUESTION: What do you think of the claim by the Syrian regime that there are militant elements that actually provoke these firefights and so on?
MS. NULAND: The kind of violence and use of armor and tanks against innocents that we've seen in Syria can't be justified on any basis.
QUESTION: So, Toria, with the United ' with these countries now, we've got the GCC, the Arab League, individual countries, what does the U.S. want to see them do? I mean, what's the message from the United States other than, of course, calling for him to stop the violence? But how far does the U.S. want them to go? Should they ' should the U.S. ' be calling for him directly to step down?
MS. NULAND: As the Secretary said last week, our concern had been that we hadn't had enough voices, particularly in the neighborhood, making clear that the path that he is on is unacceptable and is abhorrent. And that has changed radically, particularly given his horrible choices in Hama and in Deir al-Zour over the last week.
So to start with, the political condemnation is growing. As you know, the United States and many other countries have significant sanctions on Syria. We want to continue to work with our partners and particularly those with continuing economic interest in Syria to strengthen those sanctions. So those conversations are ongoing. We still believe that further action in the UN would be helpful, although the president's statement last week began to set the table for that.
And clearly, the decision by Foreign Minister Davutoglu, one of Syria's near neighbors, to go and give the message of the international community directly is significant, and we hope the regime is listening.
QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?
MS. NULAND: Please, Kirit.
QUESTION: I believe the UN is supposed to meet to follow up sometime this week. You said that you believe that the time is ' or that you believe that further UN action could be warranted. Do you think there should be a push for sanctions at the UN this week?
MS. NULAND: I don't want to speak to the timing. We had the president's statement last week. But I think what's significant in terms of what further UN action would represent is that the chorus and the community of nations who do not want to stand silent in the face of this kind of violence is growing. And that's important, obviously, in a UN context if we're going to take further steps there.
QUESTION: On the sanctions, do you expect these sanctions to include, one, gas and oil, and second, air transport, a boycott of giving access to Syrian airways, and vice versa?
MS. NULAND: Well, we have said in the past that we are particularly interested in further oil and gas sanctions. This is not something that would particularly apply in the United States context because our own economic contacts with Syria are limited. With regard to other things, we're asking all countries with trade relations with Syria to look deeply at what they can do to continue to pressure the regime.
QUESTION: Quickly, and I'm sure you've seen the latest comments from Foreign Minister Lavrov, which appear to be more critical than Russia has been in the past. Do you sense that Russia has now turned and that, therefore, it may actually be possible to get action and a resolution at the UN Security Council when it was not previously?
MS. NULAND: The actions that Asad has taken in the last week, I think, have certainly caught the attention of those countries which were more reticent to criticize him publicly, and that's why you're beginning to see this stronger public condemnation. We continue to believe that that political condemnation needs to be followed by increasing action on the economic side to increase the pressure on Syria.
In the back.
QUESTION: Did you discuss those economic sanctions with Turkish officials yesterday? Fred Hof met with the chief advisor of prime minister yesterday. And could you give us some details on this meeting?
MS. NULAND: Fred Hof, as you know, was talking to Turkey, was talking to a number of European countries. He's on a broad swing to look particularly at the issue of sanctions. I don't want to get into the specifics of those discussions, but they were primarily designed to talk about how we can up the economic pressure.
QUESTION: Is it possible to put in sanctions, bilateral sanctions to ' I mean, not United Nations Security Council only, but between Turkey and Syria like United States and Syria?
MS. NULAND: Well, certainly, any nation, it's within their sovereign right to apply sanctions bilaterally. That's the route that the United States has taken in the absence of stronger UN international action, so any of Turkey's neighbors or other countries could certainly go that route --
QUESTION: The last --
MS. NULAND: -- if they made that sovereign decision to do so.
QUESTION: Turkish officials from foreign ministry said today ' this morning, actually ' that Davutoglu will not convey any international community or someone else messages to Syrian officials, but only Turkish Government message. What does it mean?
MS. NULAND: Well, it's obviously appropriate that the Turkish foreign minister should convey the message of Turkey, Syria's neighbor. Our interest is in staying closely coordinated with all of our allies, with all of Syria's neighbors, as this diplomacy goes forward. And we've been very gratified in particular by the close coordination that the Secretary has had with Foreign Minister Davutoglu.
Please.
QUESTION: Why Foreign Minister Davutoglu was in Damascus today across Syria about (inaudible) people who were killed? And plus, the armored vehicles of Syria apparently was entering the city of Ibis, which is a very close Turkish quarter Would it be unfair to take this as an initial reaction of how the Syria sees Turkish reach out?
MS. NULAND: Sounds like that's a question for the Syrians, not a question for us. But our hope and our expectation is that the Syrian regime will hear the message that Foreign Minister Davutoglu is bringing and will heed the increasing call from the international community, which is joining us in calling for an end to the violence, a withdrawal of forces, and a beginning of a true political democratic process.
Elise --
QUESTION: Is the buffer zone right now ' is |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/WjUn1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MS. NULAND: Mm-mm. Okay. Go ahead.
QUESTION: WikiLeaks ' a new cache has come out. Apparently, it is quite large. There are reports that, due to some sort of a password breach, they're out there on the internet un-redacted. And we remember the last time this happened, you were warning people around the world who might be included in those to be careful, or the implications of this.
Number one, how ' do you have some general reaction? And are you now warning people in those documents to beware?
MS. NULAND: Well, it won't surprise you that I'm not going to comment today on the authenticity of the documents released by WikiLeaks. But I would say, in the category of general comments, that the United States strongly condemns any illegal disclosure of classified information. In addition to damaging our diplomatic efforts, it puts individuals' security at risk, threatens our national security, and undermines our effort to work with countries to solve shared problems.
We remain concerned about these illegal disclosures and about concerns and risks to individuals. We continue to carefully monitor what becomes public and to take steps to mitigate the damage to national security, and to assist those who may be harmed by these illegal disclosures, to the extent that we can.
QUESTION: So at this point, you have not necessarily helped anyone who might be in danger? You're just monitoring?
MS. NULAND: I would say that we have, over time, taken steps to help individuals. I'm not prepared to go into the details, for the safety of those individuals. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/abeBo |
|
Title: |
Middle East Diget - August 30, 2011 |
|
Authoring or Creator Agency: |
Department of State |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NewsX: A considerable section in India has begun to believe that U.S. is really not committed when it comes to terror and especially terror directed against India given the recent WikiLeaks cables. M.K. Narayanan being forced by Timothy Roemer not to seek extradition of Headley. And Narayanan saying in so many words, and I'm quoting him, 'not to be seen making the effort, but the government is not seeking extradition at this time.'
Assistant Secretary Blake: We can never comment on the WikiLeaks cables, but as a general matter I'd like to say that first of all we take our counter-terrorism responsibilities very seriously and whenever we have any kind of information about a possible terrorist attack in India we share that immediately with our friends in India to be sure that those are stopped and prevented. And I would say that our cooperation on counter-terrorism is one of the very strongest aspects of our bilateral cooperation. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Blake |
| |
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/htRGf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AsiaNet: There was a lot of discussion recently regarding the WikiLeaks cables in India. Has it embarrassed you or has it affected your foreign policy initiatives?
Assistant Secretary Blake: I can't really comment on any of the WikiLeaks cables. We are in the process of prosecuting those who were responsible for this. We consider it a real breach of trust in our security. But our relations between the United States and India are very very strong and we're certainly able to manage things like this that come up.
[Problem with recording.]
AsiaNet: There's been a lot of discussion about the WikiLeaks cables in India. Has it embarrassed you? Has it affected your relations between the U.S. and countries mentioned in the leaks?
Assistant Secretary Blake: I can't really comment on the specifics of WikiLeaks. We condemn those releases. We consider them very much a breach of security. But as a general matter, I can tell you that they have not had a major impact on our bilateral relations. Our relations are very strong and we consider that India has got to be one of our defining partnerships of the 21st Century. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Robert Blake |
| |
Title: |
Assistant Secretary |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/TVRih |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Victoria, it has been alleged that the Iranians targeted Mr. Jubair because he played a very strong role in convincing the United States to allow Saudi troops to go to Bahrain. Do you have any comment on that?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you're into the realm of WikiLeaks here and other things, and you know where I'm going to go on that, Said, which is to say that we're not going to comment. It was a good effort, though. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/8vlYT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MR. SEVERINO: Let us talk about something that you probably want to comment on. You've called this the Age of Participation.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes.
MR. SEVERINO: And you and the State Department have championed the internet and social media as tools for democratization, especially in oppressed nations. Yet your government, the U.S. Government, has not been very happy with an organization like WikiLeaks that has professed that it promotes transparency and accountability. Where would you suggest drawing the line using the internet in challenging governments, including your own?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it's a great question. We've had over 235 years in our democracy of trying to struggle with the issues about free expression, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly. And the internet is a vehicle. And 200 years ago, you would go to the town square or you would work on a newspaper, and then obviously communications became more sophisticated. So I think that the rules are not so different; it's just that the mechanism of communication in the internet is so revolutionary because you could in the past say something to two people and then those two people might spread it around, but here you can press a button and billions of people can see something.
So I think you have to be both protective of the openness of the internet but recognize that just as in free speech in any setting, there does have to be a certain set of expectations. So we do champion freedom of speech. We champion tools that can help people living in oppressive regimes continue to communicate and get around all of the obstacles that governments put up.
But when an organization ' and you mentioned WikiLeaks ' when an organization steals information, which is what happened, that is ' just because they put it on an internet doesn't make it any more right than if they had passed it out on a street corner. So there still has to be a fundamental respect for and a real benefit of the doubt given to freedom, but there also has to be certain standards, expectations, rules that have to continue to be recognized. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Hillary Clinton |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of State |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/n9g9i |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: On WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning's lawyer has recently said that the impact of the leaked documents has been exaggerated. And he points to a State Department task force of 120 individuals that reviewed the cables and found that they were either low-level opinions or materials already known in ' from previous public disclosures. Can you speak generally --
MR. TONER: I can speak generally to say ' because this is an ongoing legal case, I can speak generally, just to reiterate what we said at the time of this release of classified information, and that is that the unauthorized release of any classified information puts individuals at risk and does damage to our national security.
QUESTION: And more specifically, can you react to the claim that this task force of (inaudible) --
MR. TONER: I really can't, given some of the legal constraints here. I apologize. I mean, we're talking about an ongoing legal case, and so I'm limited to what I can say. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mark Toner |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
WikiLeaks Mitigation Team, WikiLeaks Person's at Risk Group, WikiLeaks 24/7 Task Force |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/V7TEc |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes from Merette Ibrahim from Egypt: I would love to know far do ' you support the freedom of expression on the Internet, as you have been against WikiLeaks since the beginning. Don't you consider it a part of the freedom of information?
DR. BAER: Obviously, this has been a long conversation. I think there's a distinction to be drawn between freedom of expression and the criticism that was lodged against WikiLeaks, which was ' the criticism was that it was based on an act of theft, and theft is not the same as freedom of expression. And also, we expressed our well founded concerns, as did many others, about the implications for this act of theft on the safety of people around the world. I think that what WikiLeaks ' the alleged cables and WikiLeaks exposed was ' one of the things that's been lost is that one of the things it exposed was the fact that really, by and large, around the world, what it exposed was thousands and thousands of acts of right-doing on behalf of American diplomats who were working not only to protect the best interests of American citizens but many, many citizens around the world, many, many people around the world, to solve global challenges, to solve problems, et cetera.
And so, no, I don't see any conflict in our commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association online, and our expression of well founded concerns about the theft on which WikiLeaks was based. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Daniel Baer |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Group |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/2C3Qw |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MS. NULAND: Next question, Matt Lee, AP.
QUESTION: Hello. Hi, Madam Secretary.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Hello.
QUESTION: I hope I don't shock you too much, but I actually only have one question.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I can't believe it.
QUESTION: It's got two parts, but it's only ' (laughter.)
SECRETARY CLINTON: No. Then I'm not at all shocked. I'm actually reassured.
QUESTION: As you are no doubt aware, Bradley Manning's trial begins tomorrow. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about that, but more broadly what your thoughts are about the impact the WikiLeaks incident, if we can call it that, had and is having, if it is still having any effect or deleterious effect on U.S. diplomacy in a way that foreign policy is conducted.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Matt, I cannot comment on an ongoing legal proceeding, and as you rightly point out, the trial is beginning, and we will, obviously, save any comment while that proceeding is ongoing.
I've said numerous times from this podium and in other locations that it was a very unfortunate and damaging actions ' action ' that were taken that put at risk individuals and relationships to an extent that we took it very seriously and launched a vigorous diplomatic effort to try to counter.
I think that in an age when so much information is flying through cyberspace, we all have to be aware of the fact that some information ' which is sensitive, which does affect the security of individuals and relationships ' deserves to be protected. And we will continue to take necessary steps to do so. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Hillary Clinton |
| |
Title: |
Secretary of State |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/Lk1wI |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Bradley Manning's trial begins tomorrow. I'm wondering if you have any thought ' this building has any thoughts on that? Or, more broadly, just on the impact ' the negative impact, how bad the impact was from the WikiLeaks disclosures.
MS. NULAND: Well, with regard to the trial, it's now a law enforcement matter, so I'm obviously not going to comment on it when the issue's in the courts. With regard to the impact of WikiLeaks, we were quite clear at the time, and we remain clear, that it was very ' a very bad thing.
QUESTION: Can I ask, following that ' at the time you ' this building voiced some serious concerns about the effect it might have on sources and methods and, in particular, a number of human rights activists around the world who've spoken to embassy officials. Can you speak to the overall impact now, several months later, that you've seen from the disclosure of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Well, beyond saying, Kirit, that you know that we stood up a cell in this building to work with individuals who were concerned about their security and we've made good progress in trying to help some of these individuals, I think I won't go into a broad, aggregate effort to, sort of, quantify this. But we were concerned and we have taken measures to try to help those who have been concerned about government --
QUESTION: And do you think those measures have been effective?
MS. NULAND: In a number of cases, we've been able to be quite effective.
QUESTION: And have there been any cases in which you feel that somebody's still at risk?
MS. NULAND: Again, I think it won't help the people involved for me to go any deeper on this issue.
QUESTION: Okay. And my last question will be just the diplomatic impact, just following on Matt's question, if you could speak to that at all. I mean, that was a subject at the Secretary's meetings for months after the initial release --
MS. NULAND: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- I mean, have ' are you guys still reeling from that, or is that kind of patched up for the most part?
MS. NULAND: Well, as you know, the Secretary spent a good amount of time ' I would argue months ' working with and reassuring governments around the world and rebuilding trust. And her personal involvement in that, along with the President's, was absolutely key to getting ourselves back to strong positions with some of our interlocutors around the world.
QUESTION: And you do feel that you've reached that point? In other words, where things have patched up?
MS. NULAND: Well, look, I'm not in a position to qualify/quantify, but I would say that we have not had continued representations about WikiLeaks over the past six, seven months. So --
[*****] QUESTION: But there have been some kind of tactical changes, I mean, right ' of some diplomats not being able to take notes in certain meetings, or like meetings being restricted? I mean there have been practical effects since then, wouldn't you say?
MS. NULAND: Well, we've obviously taken steps both on the strategic level and --
QUESTION: Well, and host governments also have on you, haven't they?
MS. NULAND: I don't think that you can necessarily make a direct link. I mean, in diplomatic conversations, sometimes it's appropriate to have small meetings, and sometimes it's appropriate to have bigger delegation meetings. Obviously, individual governments have made their own policy decisions, but more importantly, this building and this government, broadly, has taken steps to address some of the issues that allowed the WikiLeaks thing to happen in the first place.
QUESTION: Can you be a little bit more specific about when you say 'It was a very bad thing?' Because it sounds as though from one of your answers to Kirit is that this has pretty much blown over now. And in the light of that, I wonder how difficult it's going to be for the Administration to make the case that this was, in fact, as damaging as you claim it was ' or as you claimed it was at the time.
MS. NULAND: Again, this is now a legal case. The case will be made by the lawyers, and I'm not going to get in the middle of it.
QUESTION: No, I understand. But can you be a little bit ' I mean, 'It was a very bad thing,' is not particularly enlightening.
MS. NULAND: Matt, we spoke extensively at the time about the damage to America's reputation, about the damage to individual ' individuals who had been open and honest with us, about the risks with regard to trust that are essential for diplomacy. And as I said, the Secretary, the President had to spend many months reassuring governments afterwards. I can't quantify the residual impact standing here today. But what's most important is that this case is now in the U.S. courts --
QUESTION: No. It's in the military courts.
MS. NULAND: -- and that he will face justice. Yeah.
|
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate, WikiLeaks 24/7 Task Force, WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Group, WikiLeaks Mitigation Team |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MS. JENSEN: Our next question comes IDG News Service, Raffaella Menichini: Can you comment on the recent decision by the Virginia District Court that allows the Justice Department to access records of the Twitter accounts used by WikiLeaks associates? Isn't that a form of violation of privacy on social media, something that the State Department maintains as a basic value?
MR. ROSS: Yeah. No. There's ' absolutely not. In the United States, we have rules for what we call lawful intercept. If there is reason to believe that somebody is committing a crime, for the last decades there is a legal process, a transparent legal process, through which the Justice Department can get, for example, phone records. The news that's been made where the Justice Department can do the same thing, for example, with Twitter records is no different than that which happens hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of time a year and has been happening for decades with the phone.
So the only difference is that we're talking about digital communications versus traditional telephone, but the transparent rule of law and the due process in the United States is the same. So what applies to the telephone applies to social media. And so if you are planning a crime or conducting a crime using the phone, it's not okay, and if you are planning a crime and conducting a crime using social media, similarly it's not okay.
The difference in the United States versus other places is that we do this without sacrificing universal rights. So people have freedom of expression. They have the ability to exercise peaceful, political dissent. They have the ability to communicate however they see fit. What these laws for what we call lawful intercept apply to specifically is investigations regarding the conduct of a crime.
MS. JENSEN: I just want to make a quick correction. The last question came from the Repubblica. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Alec Ross |
| |
Title: |
Senior Advisor for Innovation |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Twitter 2703(d), 2703(d) Orders, Grand Jury |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/TVvKq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: So on the first anniversary of the protests ' it's exactly a year ago ' do you believe that U.S. policy toward Syria and what's going on in Syria has been on target, lacking, or ambitious? How do you characterize it?
MS. NULAND: You're asking me to give a grade --
QUESTION: I mean, I'm asking you as the ' this is the top diplomatic entity in this town and they're the ones that conduct foreign policy toward all parts of the world. So how do you assess your policy towards Syria thus far?
MS. NULAND: I think the more appropriate point to be making on this one year anniversary -- and as you know, there was some upheaval before a year ago today, but we think about this as the anniversary because it was a particularly horrific and violent day. It was the one ' today's the one year anniversary of the beginning of the peaceful political protest that followed the killing of school children in Daraa for the crime of writing some anti-Assad graffiti on the walls.
So what have we seen in this year? As the peaceful protests have grown, the Assad regime has become more and more bloody and violent vis-a-vis its own people, has gone into town after town trying to suppress the violence with guns rather than sitting and talking with its own people.
So the international community has responded. And you've seen over these months, more and more countries increase their sanctions on Iran ' on Syria. Just today ' well, more and more countries closing the noose on Syria, refusing to trade, refusing to conduct normal diplomacy, refusing to allow normal flights and commerce, et cetera. We're seeing the impact on the Syrian economy. We're seeing the impact on the increasing isolation of Syria. We are going to keep up the pressure until the Syrian people achieve their objectives.
Nicole.
QUESTION: Does the Administration have any comment on the alleged Assad emails that were printed in the Guardian newspaper? And did the Administration have access to them before they were published?
MS. NULAND: On your last question, I think the answer is no. I don't have any information to indicate that we saw them before they were published. But we don't have any reason to believe that they're anything but authentic. And they really tell an amazing tale. Far from being detached from what his military is doing, Assad seems to take pride in the viciousness of his own security forces. And he seems to make fun of the idea of actually sitting down and talking with his people. So it really illustrates the character of this guy who ' and why he has lost legitimacy not only in the eyes of his people, but in the eyes of the international community.
I'm getting the high sign.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MS. NULAND: Let's do one more.
[START MATT LEE] QUESTION: I got a few more. First of all, on that one: Since you're willing to comment now on the substance of stolen documents, I'd like for you to talk about some WikiLeaks cables. Will you be willing to do that?
MS. NULAND: I will not.
QUESTION: Why is it that you're willing to draw conclusions from emails that were clearly stolen from the people who were writing the back and forth to each other in this case and not on something ' I mean, do you agree that these were stolen?
MS. NULAND: I can't speak to how the Guardian acquired them. I would send you to the Guardian on that.
QUESTION: Right. Well, you know, WikiLeaks didn't speak to how they acquired their documents.
MS. NULAND: They were classified government cables, and we're obviously not going to comment on them. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/jWv5z |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: In the WikiLeaks case, the judge in the Bradley Manning case this morning ordered the State Department, among other agencies, to turn over some of their documents to the defense in order to help the Manning team better prepare its case. Is the State Department going to turn over those documents? And my follow-up is: Does the U.S. still see a negative impact on its relations with other countries in diplomacy because of what happened in the alleged leaking of these documents?
MS. NULAND: Let me take the last part first. I think our view of the entire WikiLeaks incident has not changed at all in terms of the negative effects. With regard to what the court has ordered, Ros, I haven't seen it, so let me take it and see what we know about what's been requested of us and what our response is.
[...]
QUESTION: -- to go back to the WikiLeaks question. When you said that your position had not changed as to whether this ' whether the release of these documents have done damage to the national security, what ' can you be more ' what does that mean? You say that it did damage?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: Can you be more explicit about how it did damage?
MS. NULAND: I think we were quite explicit at the time, and I'm not going to come back to it today.
QUESTION: Well, no, at ' well, at the time, you said that it had the potential ' well, not you personally; it was your predecessor ' but had the potential to do damage and that there was the concern in the ' in this building in particular that ambassadors or embassies would be less than forthcoming about what they wrote in cables coming back, knowing that they had been ' that it had been compromised.
Has there been any evidence? Is this building concerned or is there evidence that shows that this building is not getting full accounting, full reporting, honest, candid reporting from its embassies abroad in the wake of WikiLeaks?
MS. NULAND: Our embassies abroad continue to do a superb job of working with governments and societies where they are accredited and giving us a good, strong picture of what's going on. That doesn't change the fact that there was enormous turbulence in many of our bilateral relationships when this happened, and that there have been impacts on individuals. As you know, we've talked about that at the time.
QUESTION: Right. But when you say enormous turbulence in bilateral relationships, has ' what has ' what can you ' what is there that --
MS. NULAND: I don't think I'm going to go any further than we went at the time. We had concerns from many of our interlocutors.
QUESTION: Well, I know you had concerns --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- but that ' but concern is ' that does not that mean that there's ' that something has been damaged?
MS. NULAND: I think we've got an ongoing lawsuit, and I'm not going to go any further right now.
QUESTION: Well, I'm just curious, though. If the ' do you see ' has the U.S. ability to conduct its foreign relations been compromised or damaged because of WikiLeaks? Can you point to one or two examples of how that ' of how this has done harm to the U.S. national security or U.S. --
MS. NULAND: Matt --
QUESTION: -- ability to conduct diplomacy?
MS. NULAND: -- given the fact that we have an ongoing legal case, I don't think I'm going to comment any further on this set of issues today.
QUESTION: Well, fair enough, but --
MS. NULAND: Michel, did you have something else?
QUESTION: -- you do understand this is exactly what you're being asked to produce in court.
MS. NULAND: I understand. And --
QUESTION: And if you're saying that, 'Yes, it did damage, but I'm sorry, I can't tell you what the damage is because it's a secret,' that's what ' is that what you're saying?
MS. NULAND: What I'm saying is there's ongoing legal work now, and if there are legal responsibilities of this building, we'll do it in a court of law, not here.
QUESTION: Well, but in terms of the one thing that you did answer, you ' there isn't any evidence that this has affected embassies' ability or ' to report back honestly and accurately about what's going on in their host countries. Is that correct?
MS. NULAND: I'm not going to give a grade to our embassies. We expressed our concern at the time. Those concerns were very clearly stated. I'm not going to get into evaluating, from this podium, what's come back, what hasn't come back. We've got an ongoing legal case.
Michel.
QUESTION: One clarification still on this, please.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: I thought the concern was less that embassies would not report stuff back in cables but that their interlocutors would not tell them stuff in the first place because they no longer had faith that the U.S. Government could keep their conversations or communications private, given the vast leak of cables. So I think the question might be better posed as: Has the State Department discerned a diminution in the candor of its foreign interlocutors as a result of this gross breach of confidentiality?
MS. NULAND: Again, we said what we wanted to say at the time on this case. We now have this case in the courts, and I just don't think it's appropriate for me to be commenting any further. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/uhPNd |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Status of Freedom of Speech and Press
The constitution and law provide for freedom of speech and of the press, and the government generally respected these rights in practice. The independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restriction.
Censorship or Content Restrictions: The government did not penalize anyone for publishing items counter to government guidelines, but the media practiced occasional self-censorship. In July, local and regional media criticized the Media Workers Association of Grenada for stifling a story about an editor who was arrested for being verbally abusive to a magistrate. Some journalists avoided coverage of Wikileaks-sourced material as a result of legal or political uncertainties regarding its use. |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labor, Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate, WikiLeaks Persons at Risk Group |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: All right. And then the WikiLeaks people are saying --
MS. NULAND: I love stories ' the questions that start with 'the WikiLeaks people are saying.' (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Right. They are pointing out that the Secretary is going to be in Sweden coming up soon.
MS. NULAND: True.
QUESTION: And that it would be quote/unquote 'fanciful' not to imagine that the subject of Mr. Assange is raised by the Secretary with Swedish authorities, considering this is going to be apparently a couple of days after a decision is made on his extradition. I'm wondering, one, if that is correct, if it would ' or if ' is ' do you know if she has any intention to raise his case with Swedish authorities? And if she is, why would she? And then number two, since you have had this position are you aware of her ever bringing his ' this case up or even mentioning Mr. Assange's name in meetings with foreign officials?
MS. NULAND: No and no.
QUESTION: So ' okay. So it will not ' you can say, no, it's definitely not going to come up, it's not on her agenda as even the last or below last, i.e. if there's time I might ' at the end of the meeting, I might raise it? (Laughter.) I'm just trying to get a sense of where ' I mean, they seem to think that Mr. Assange is on the top of everyone's ' his name is on the tip of everyone's tongue and that it would be ridiculous to assume that she doesn't bring up this case. But I just want to get a sense from you of where he would be on the agenda in a meeting between Secretary Clinton and the Swedes.
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, she does not plan to spend her valuable time in Sweden on that matter.
QUESTION: All right. Even mentioning it?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, it is not in her plans. We'll have to see what the actual day brings.
QUESTION: All right. And then the second part of your no, or the second no, to your knowledge, while you've been in this job, she has not ever raised his name with any foreign official?
MS. NULAND: Affirmatively raised it in terms of --
QUESTION: Yes. In terms of brought up his case specifically, not the Bradley Manning case, not --
MS. NULAND: Right. To my knowledge, she has not.
QUESTION: Okay.
MS. NULAND: Okay. Thanks, everybody. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/oalwG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: On another subject, this nomination of Brett McGurk, is it in trouble? And can you confirm that the State Department is investigating allegations of these emails between him and Ms. Chon of The Wall Street Journal?
MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, on the subject of the emails, they're out there for everybody to see. I'm not going to get into emails between Mr. McGurk and the woman who subsequently became his wife. With regard to Mr. McGurk's nomination, I think you know that he spent the better part of the last decade serving our country in and out of Iraq, working for a Republican administration, a Democratic administration. He is, in our view, uniquely qualified to serve as our ambassador, and we urge the Senate to act quickly on his nomination.
QUESTION: So obviously you're sticking with him. But can you confirm that ' because there are reports ' that the State Department actually has looked into these alleged emails, or the allegations that these might have compromised security or sensitive information?
MS. NULAND: I don't have anything to say on the emails.
QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: Because, I mean, there are rules for Foreign Service officers to not get into situations where you're blackmailed. There's sort of a sense that you have to act morally. There are these regulations in your guidebooks. And some people have lost security clearances over having extramarital affairs. So I wonder why it is that this doesn't seem to be ' factor at all into your decision in keeping this ' keeping his nomination out there.
MS. NULAND: Again, we consider him uniquely qualified. All of the necessary things were done before his nomination, and we urge the Senate to confirm him.
Jill.
QUESTION: Can you confirm that those emails actually came from the State Department system, in ' within the State Department system?
MS. NULAND: I'm not going to speak about the emails. They're out there for you to look at. They're obviously very much available for anybody to read.
QUESTION: Aren't you investigating how they were leaked? They're from your own system.
MS. NULAND: I'm not going to get into our internal issues here.
QUESTION: Well, why not? You talk about WikiLeaks all the time. Those were essentially emails.
MS. NULAND: Goes to your usual point, Matt, that we speak about --
QUESTION: What, the lack of consistency?
MS. NULAND: Yes. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. Oh, okay, great. When ' you said you did ' all the necessary things were done before his nomination. What are those necessary things? Was that like a security clearance and vetting and --
MS. NULAND: All that stuff.
QUESTION: Well, I mean ' no, I ' what are they? I don't know. What has to be done, not just in his case but in any nominee's case?
MS. NULAND: His nomination was managed in the exact ' with the exact same processes that we use for everyone.
QUESTION: Well, okay. What does that mean? I mean, does that mean that there's an FBI check or --
MS. NULAND: I'm going to refer you to the White House for how they do this.
QUESTION: All right. And then --
QUESTION: Just one more on that.
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: If you do ' if you did do that, are you sharing this with members of Congress who have severe problems with his nomination?
MS. NULAND: We always work with Congress on our nominees, and we're continuing to do that in this case.
QUESTION: Can you confirm that there has been at least one meeting with ' on the specific issues, not on the specific issues that were about the emails, with people on the Hill?
MS. NULAND: I'm not going to comment on the specifics of our conversation with Congress, but in all these nomination procedures, we work with the Hill on any --
QUESTION: Right.
MS. NULAND: -- issues that they have as our --
QUESTION: But are you --
MS. NULAND: -- nominees are being reviewed.
QUESTION: But are you aware that this ' that people from the State Department have gone to the Hill and/or have spoken to members of the committee who have raised concerns about these specific issues. And by these specific issues, I don't mean the more specific substantive issues that senator ' people like Senator McCain have raised. I'm talking specifically about the emails. Do you know if they have been ' if this issue has been discussed with people on the Hill?
MS. NULAND: Beyond saying that we continue to work with appropriate members and staff on his nomination in support of it, as we do with all nominees, I'm not going to get into details. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Cablegate |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/a2XfE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: Any contact with Ecuador since Julian Assange's arrival at the Embassy in London requesting asylum and perhaps a request that he be extradited to the United States on the WikiLeaks (inaudible)?
MS. NULAND: No. No.
QUESTION: On that subject, does the Administration care where Julian Assange decides he wants to spend the night? Is this a subject that keeps people up in Washington? I don't ' is it something that you have any interest in at all?
MS. NULAND: This is a UK-Ecuador-Sweden issue.
QUESTION: Well, people who ' his people around him seem to think that the U.S. is some puppeteer here that's controlling all the strings. And I just ' I mean, does anyone give a second thought about Julian Assange? And maybe you can't answer that for anyone ' but I mean, are you aware of anyone who gives a fig where Julian Assange is?
MS. NULAND: To my knowledge, we are not involved in any of these discussions.
QUESTION: Yeah, but do you care? Does anyone --
MS. NULAND: Again, you're asking me to speak for the great mass of America.
QUESTION: Well, I mean ' but in terms of ' no, in terms of the ' in terms of this building.
MS. NULAND: We want to see justice served. Let's leave it at that.
QUESTION: Yeah. But that would be justice ' Swedish justice.
MS. NULAND: We are obviously not involved in the process, as far as I know. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Victoria Nuland |
| |
Title: |
Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Sweden versus Assange |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/dSddn |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
QUESTION: I'm sorry. Do you have a comment on the Wikileaks leaking of all the Syria emails?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, I've seen the initial news reports, as you have. My general reaction is that I don't think we need any more internal documents of the Assad regime to know exactly about ' there is ample evidence about the exact kind of violence that they're perpetrating against their own people. So my initial reaction is that I'm not sure that any additional internal correspondence will change our perspective.
QUESTION: What do you mean by additional?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, what I'm saying is that --
QUESTION: You are in possession of internal Syrian correspondence?
MR. VENTRELL: No, what I'm saying is that it is blatantly clear to the whole world what the Assad regime is doing to its people. And so --
QUESTION: So this is not just --
MR. VENTRELL: Well, we've just seen the initial reports. |
| |
Name(s:) |
Mark Toner |
| |
Title: |
Deputy Spokesperson |
| |
Agency(ies): |
Department of State |
|
Concerning: |
Syria Files |
|
Url: |
Url Link
|
|
Archive: |
Archive Link
http://archive.is/QkcPp |
|
