United States vs. Manning

United States vs. Manning

A timeline of the U.S. investigation between 2006 to 2013

Tweet

About
•
Tags
•
Main

2010-11-29

Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Phillip J. Crowley remarks on the Department of State 24/7 WikiLeaks Task force. Crowley says that the Department of State has known about the impending release by of Department of State cables by WikiLeaks and has stood up a group to handle the release when it was published, because the State Department considers a 'crisis' on a 'global scale'. Crowley says, 'We have had conversations with news organizations that are in receipt of documents. We have expressed our concerns about the welfare of particular individuals who are cited in documents. We have outlined for news organizations the national interests that are potentially compromised by this release. But we continue to underscore that this release is damaging and does put individuals at considerable risk.' When asked why the Department of State did not take WikiLeaks up on Julian Assange's offer to redact sensitive national security information, despite the Department of State's repeated remarks that the release put people's lives at risk, in light of the Department of State working with other news organizations, like The New York Times, Crowley says, 'Look, I'm not going to I'm not going to debate this. We provided our perspective to Mr. Assange on in Harold Koh's letter.' When asked whether or not the Department of State, which is a partner in the ongoing investigation intended to charge Julian Assange, WikiLeaks, or other media organizations, Crowley responded, 'We are treating this seriously. We see it as a crime. But the disclosure, unauthorized disclosure of information, in and of itself is not a terrorist act.'

		MR. CROWLEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the Department of State. Obviously, Im sure the Secretary of State answered all of your questions on that particular subject. Let me mention just briefly a couple of other things before coming back to the issue that Im sure youre focused on today. The Secretary this morning had a very productive session with Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu. They did talk about the WikiLeaks issue, and the foreign minister appreciated the direct and candid comments that the Secretary provided. [...] With that QUESTION: P.J., just a couple short things on the whole WikiLeaks fiasco. One, have you gotten any formal complaints or protests from foreign governments about this? I realize it wasnt you that released them, but are you aware of any formal (inaudible)? MR. CROWLEY: I am confident that from embassies first and in succeeding days, we will hear reaction from various governments to bring you to the present point. The Secretary made a number of calls over the weekend to her counterparts. And from 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. Were conscious of the fact that probably the stories that weve 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. But I would expect that we will be having feedback from governments during the course of this process. Im just not aware of any particular feedback at this point. Obviously, the Secretary had a chance to talk to Foreign Minister Davutoglu, as she indicated when she met with you earlier. She will have a number of conversations this week with her counterparts and other leaders during the OSCE Summit. So well be getting some feedback. QUESTION: Okay, and then the second thing is that do you there is a lot of stuff in these cables that talks about the what diplomats report back. MR. CROWLEY: Thats a diplomatic term, 'stuff.' QUESTION: Yeah. (Laughter.) Talks about what diplomats what American diplomats are expected to report back to Washington about their host government or foreign other foreign leaders. Theres been a lot of handwringing, at least in Europe, about this kind of about some of this kind of reporting in terms of the German political scene and the candid assessments of foreign leaders as well as this intelligence-gathering or gathering of biometric data at the UN. Will any of that change or are these going to continue to be kind of standard operating procedure for diplomats abroad? Or are you -- MR. CROWLEY: Well, and Ill just establish the principle up front that were not going to talk about any particular cable. In our conversations with our counterparts around the world, I think there is, in diplomatic circles, an understanding that this is what diplomats do. We have our diplomats posted around the world, many in challenging circumstances. They are trying theyre interacting with government officials; theyre interacting with members of civil society; theyre trying to interpret events on the ground. These events are increasingly at a more rapid pace than perhaps might have occurred in the past. They report back what they see, what they hear to the State Department here in Washington and to other agencies across the government. Many of these reports are raw, unvarnished. They provide on-the-ground perspective. They inform policies. They inform actions. But as the Secretary made clear, policies are set here in Washington. The information that is collected and provided is useful. In some cases its accurate. In some cases its not. In some cases it might be a vantage point from one foxhole that might may or may not necessarily represent a broader perspective. But this is what diplomats do. Weve very proud of what our diplomats do. We will learn from this experience. As the Secretary has said, weve already made adjustments in how we the access that we provide to our reporting documents. But we will not change how we do diplomacy around the world. QUESTION: So the answer the short answer to my question was no, its not going to change anything? MR. CROWLEY: I liked my answer better. QUESTION: Well, is that -- MR. CROWLEY: No. I mean we -- QUESTION: No. You -- MR. CROWLEY: Its a very valid point. As the Secretary said, in some cases people leak information because they think theres been wrongdoing. This is information that helps people understand how we conduct the foreign policy of the United States day in and day out in difficult assignments around the world. Were very proud of our diplomats. We do we think they do an excellent job of helping inform policy. Were not going to change what we do. QUESTION: Okay. So their instructions from Washington wont change. And then the corollary to that is that are you concerned at all that some people might water-down or be less candid in their appraisals of people because of this? MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think the Secretary last night sent a message to the troops, if you will. And well be making clear that we value the diplomatic work that is done at posts all over the world. Well we are going to we have already and we will continue to look to see how information is stored, who has access to that information, both within our department and across the government. But certainly, without getting into any specific cable, what you see here is information that is very, very important to the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States. Jill. QUESTION: P.J., specifically on that question of how this information is stored, the understanding that we seem to have is that post 9/11, in an effort to avoid stove-piping, they brought a lot of this information together under the DOD. Does the Secretary have a view at this point I know Jack Lew said each organization, agency, now has to study, put together a team. But does the Secretary believe that it is a good idea for State Department cables and other communication to be in a system along with DOD? MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have stood here and weve talked about whole-of-government efforts on our policy. Theres a great deal of interaction between the State Department and the Defense Department and across other agencies of government. So you do have to share information to be able to have a common perspective on the development and execution of both a foreign policy that includes a military dimension and a civil dimension. So the sharing of information is vitally important to the coordination and conduct of our national security policies. That should not change. I think the other phenomenon one phenomenon, of course, is the imperative after 9/11 of a need to share. And we will evaluate that imperative against the need to protect or the need to know. And so this will be something that we will be reviewing, and there is obviously tension between those two approaches. I think the other thing weve learned here is that it is not just the greater coordination and interaction across agencies, but its also the digitization of the information that is comes into the State Department. If you go back probably 25 years, these were done by paper and teletypes and so on and so forth. We do have a digitized system that allows us to report in real time. That has great value and benefit. But we have taken steps to review who has access to the networks and the databases on which our information and the information of other agencies is resident, and we will tighten up those access standards as we go forward. But we are have been for many months reviewing the implications of this expected release. QUESTION: P.J. -- QUESTION: P.J. -- MR. CROWLEY: Yeah. Charlie. QUESTION: With all respect, you didnt answer Matts question about whether the language whether you expect that the language from people reporting from the field to change or Ill use the word to soften, but thats my word or do you expect them to be as frank
	Name(s:)	Phillip J. Crowley
	Title:	Assistant Secretary
	Agency(ies):	Public Affairs, Department of State
	Concerning:	Cablegate, WikiLeaks 24/7 Task Force, Banking Blockade
	Url:	Url Link
	Archive:	http://archive.is/KQi8j

	Title:	Daily Press Briefing - November 29, 2010
Url Link

2011-05-01

2011-06-30

Victoria Nuland, spokesperson for the Department of State says that the Department of State has stopped mitigating press coverage related to WikiLeaks publication of cables, 'we have not had continued representations about WikiLeaks over the past six, seven months.' [May or June 2011] Nuland says that '[T]he 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: 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:	http://archive.is/hgq1b

	Title:	Daily Press Briefing - December 15, 2011
	Authoring or Creator Agency:	Department of State
Url Link

2011-12-15

Department of State spokesperson, Victoria Nuland, states, '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.' Nuland refers to the WikiLeaks Person's at Risk Group saying, '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.' Nuland also says, 'In a number of cases, we've been able to be quite effective.' Nuland would not comment on if there are instances when it was not 'effective' or if persons were still at risk. Nuland also says that '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.' She adds, 'we have not had continued representations about WikiLeaks over the past six, seven months [since May or June 2011].'

		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

database built by Alexa O'Brien and Shoofly Solutions