Wikileaks servers under DOS attack ahead of diplomatic document dump; Update: Times reveals documents; Update: Hillary ordered spying at the UN; Update: Iran obtains advanced missiles from North Korea? Update: Wikileaks posts intro to documents

posted at 1:29 pm on November 28, 2010 by Allahpundit

It’s probably not the feds who are responsible, simply because knocking the servers offline at this point achieves nothing. Wikileaks gave the documents to newspapers weeks ago; the first stories about the contents are set to drop this afternoon at around 4:30 p.m. Unless they’re being DOS’d purely out of spite, why bother?

I’m not sure what the point of this is either:

In a highly unusual step reflecting the administration’s grave concerns about the ramifications of the move, the State Department late Saturday released a letter from its top lawyer to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his attorney telling them that publication of the documents would be illegal and demanding that they stop it

The letter from State Department legal adviser Harold Koh was released as U.S. diplomats around the world are scrambling to warn foreign governments about what might be in the secret documents that are believed to contain highly sensitive assessments about world leaders, their policies and America’s attempts to lobby them…

The State Department said Koh’s message was a response to a letter received on Friday by the U.S. ambassador to Britain, Louis Susman, from Assange and his lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. The department said that letter asked for information “regarding individuals who may be ‘at significant risk of harm’ because of” the release of the documents.

“Despite your stated desire to protect those lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals,” Koh wrote in reply. “You have undermined your stated objective by disseminating this material widely, without redaction, and without regard to the security and sanctity of the lives your actions endanger.”

Again, the Times has had these documents for ages. No doubt they’ve got a giant front-page feature about them set to publish tonight. Assange probably couldn’t stop them at this point even if he wanted to, in which case releasing the letter is really just the feds doing PR. I’m intrigued, though, that it’s Koh who signed it and not some lower-level functionary. Partly that’s to signal how seriously State is taking this, but possibly it’s also an attempt by the Obama administration to trade on Koh’s leftist credibility in rallying U.S. public opinion against Wikileaks. He’s been a liberal shortlister for Supreme Court vacancies since The One took office, notwithstanding his legal defense of drone strikes in Pakistan. Having him publicly warn Wikileaks about the damage they’re doing to U.S. interests might temper progressive enthusiasm for Assange from three cheers to, say, one.

Needless to say, Assange has already rejected Koh’s demands. And just to make sure that he wrings every drop of media attention he can get out of this, he’s arranged for the documents to be released in waves, ensuring a week’s worth of buzz for him and his group instead of a mere 48 hours. What sort of bombshell revelations can we expect? Well, apparently, there’s nothing “top secret” in the files; six percent qualify as “secret,” 40.5 percent are “classified,” and the rest aren’t confidential at all. Which doesn’t mean that they won’t be embarrassing:

A journalist with Britain’s Guardian newspaper said the files include an unflattering US assessment of UK PM David Cameron.

Simon Hoggart told the BBC: “There is going to be some embarrassment certainly for Gordon Brown but even more so for David Cameron who was not very highly regarded by the Obama administration or by the US ambassador here.”

More here, including a reference to Ahmadinejad as “Hitler,” and here, teasing the possibility that Turkey might have facilitated weapons smuggling to Al Qaeda in Iraq(!). Until today, one could argue (unpersuasively) that Wikileaks isn’t so much anti-American as it is anti-war; releasing secret docs about Iraq and Afghanistan supposedly would speed an end to the conflicts, forcing a U.S. withdrawal and leaving Iraqis and Afghans to enjoy a thousand years of kite-flying, occupation-free peace, etc. That’s moronic, but it’s more or less in line with traditional leftist policy priorities. What’s the “anti-war” motive, though, in releasing a few hundred thousand diplomatic cables? Progressives are forever telling us that we need to rely less on Defense and more on State, and yet it sounds like today’s leak will do much greater damage to the latter than the previous leaks did to the former. Not only will it strain U.S. diplomatic relationships, but the paranoia it’ll engender among U.S. diplomats about future communiques being exposed will cripple their ability to be candid. In fact, depending upon how sensitive the revelations are and which countries they involve, Wikileaks is potentially increasing the risk of war in the Middle East, on the Korean peninsula, or who knows where else. As Glenn Reynolds likes to say: They’re not anti-war, they’re just on the other side.

Just as I’m writing this, the Times has gone live with its news package about the documents. I’m off to go read. Back later with more.

Update: Spiegel and the Guardian have also released their document packages.

Update: Here’s a fun one from Spiegel. Let the outrageously outrageous progressive outrage begin!

US diplomats are alleged to have been requested by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to spy on the diplomats of other countries at the United Nations. That was the purpose of the “National Humint Collection Directive,” which has been seen by SPIEGEL. The document was signed by Clinton and came into force on July 31, 2009.

The information to be collected included personal credit card information, frequent flyer customer numbers, as well as e-mail and telephone accounts. In many cases the State Department also required “biometric information,” “passwords” and “personal encryption keys.” In the US, the term biometric information generally refers to fingerprints, passport photos and iris scans, among other things.

Hasn’t every country at the UN attempted to spy on every other country there since the day the building opened? C’mon.

Update: Someone on Twitter points out that the Times’s stories on the leaks contain the subhead “State Secrets — Day 1 of 9.”

Update: The Times claims it’s taken precautions to protect sources, including agreeing to some — but not all — redactions proposed by the White House: “The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.”

Update: One of the questions before the leak was whether there’d be any real news here or whether, like the war leaks, it’d fall into the “confirmation of stuff most people suspected anyway” category. Here’s an example of real news and an illustration of my point about how the leak will make war more, not less, likely. Given the fragility of the situation in North Korea, is now the moment to make bombshell public accusations against them?

Secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design, that are much more powerful than anything Washington has publicly conceded that Tehran has in its arsenal, diplomatic cables show.

Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a cable dated Feb. 24 of this year. The cable is a detailed, highly classified account of a meeting between top Russian officials and an American delegation led by Vann H. Van Diepen, an official with the State Department’s nonproliferation division who, as a national intelligence officer several years ago, played a crucial role in the 2007 assessment of Iran’s nuclear capacity…

The missile intelligence also suggests far deeper military — and perhaps nuclear — cooperation between North Korea and Iran than was previously known. At the request of the Obama administration, The New York Times has agreed not to publish the text of the cable.

Other cables reveal King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urging the U.S. to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, which does fall into the “stuff everyone suspected” category but isn’t going to help Sunni/Shiite relations, especially if things come to a head in Lebanon over the findings of the Hariri tribunal. Among others urging action: Jordan, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi.

Update: More rocking of the North Korean boat: The Times’s overview article mentions that the U.S. and South Korea have discussed how to bring about reunification on the peninsula. That’s firmly in the “stuff everyone suspected” category too, but if North Korea’s looking for a new pretext to justify a further provocation, an alleged foreign “plot” to dissolve the DPRK could be useful.

Also in that overview piece, here’s a way to further destabilize an already unstable country:

For instance, it has been previously reported that the Yemeni government has sought to cover up the American role in missile strikes against the local branch of Al Qaeda. But a cable’s fly-on-the-wall account of a January meeting between the Yemeni president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, then the American commander in the Middle East, is nonetheless breathtaking.

“We’ll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours,” Mr. Saleh said, according to the cable sent by the American ambassador, prompting Yemen’s deputy prime minister to “joke that he had just ‘lied’ by telling Parliament” that Yemeni forces had carried out the strikes.

Yemenis surely already suspect that the U.S. is working against jihadis inside the country, but it’s one thing to suspect it and another to have hard evidence of Saleh merrily lying to the public to protect American interests. AQ will get a lot of propaganda mileage out of that.

Update: The point of leaking government documents, ostensibly, is to expose matters of urgent public interest. Sometimes that means revealing state crimes, sometimes it means exposing state disinformation, sometimes it simply means that something so important is going on that citizens need to know about it notwithstanding the value of secrecy. That said, what’s the “urgent public interest” in revealing this?

The US diplomats’ verdict on the NATO partner with the second biggest army in the alliance is devastating. The Turkish leadership is depicted as divided, and Erdogan’s advisers, as well as Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, are portrayed as having little understanding of politics beyond Ankara.

The Americans are also worried about Davutoglu’s alleged neo-Ottoman visions. A high-ranking government adviser warned in discussions, quoted by the US diplomats, that Davutoglu would use his Islamist influence on Erdogan, describing him as “exceptionally dangerous.” According to the US document, another adviser to the ruling AKP party remarked, probably ironically, that Turkey wanted “to take back Andalusia and avenge the defeat at the siege of Vienna in 1683.”

Breaking news: Turkey is trending towards Islamism and looking to increase its regional influence. That’s not even a “stuff everyone suspects” item; it’s a “stuff everyone knows for a fact” item, adorned here with a few dark suspicions — which may or may not even be meant seriously — about the foreign minister. Is the public interest in knowing that Davutoglu isn’t to be trusted worth the strain this will put on U.S.-Turkish relations at a moment when we’re desperate to keep Turkey oriented towards the west and secularism? That is to say, what’s the ratio among the leaked documents of those that expose “urgent public matters” to those that simply embarrass the American diplomatic corps and alienate their foreign counterparts? If it’s important for the public to be informed of foreign relations down to the level of which international diplomats we do and don’t trust, then Congress should simply pass a law requiring all diplomatic messages to be made public immediately. See how that works out.

Update: Guardian contributor Simon Jenkins helpfully, and conveniently, obliterates the “urgent public interest” standard. Turns out everything, save for naming sources and details that might jeopardize military ops, is a matter of public interest now:

Anything said or done in the name of a democracy is, prima facie, of public interest. When that democracy purports to be “world policeman” – an assumption that runs ghostlike through these cables – that interest is global. Nonetheless, the Guardian had to consider two things in abetting disclosure, irrespective of what is anyway published by WikiLeaks. It could not be party to putting the lives of individuals or sources at risk, nor reveal material that might compromise ongoing military operations or the location of special forces.

And in case you’re wondering what his agenda is, he offers this: “America’s foreign policy is revealed as a slave to rightwing drift, terrified of a bomb exploding abroad or of a pro-Israeli congressman at home.”

Update: Ben Smith calls the revelations “a moment of remarkable impotence” for American diplomacy but finds a silver lining in the fact that it happened on Obama’s watch instead of Bush’s. True enough: The One’s international influence ain’t what it used to be, as his trip to Asia demonstrated, but he doesn’t draw the sort of venom abroad that the Bushitler did. That ought to make damage control marginally easier. On the other hand, it gives true anti-American factions ammo to persuade the Bush-haters that the problem isn’t Bush, it’s America. Under Dubya, this sort of mega-clusterfark could be spun internationally as further evidence of his personal incompetence, recklessness, malignancy, etc, but under Obama — who famously framed his foreign policy as, er, “smart power” — it’ll be proof that, as a systemic matter, U.S. national security isn’t nearly as secure as it should be. If you’re a foreign diplomat of whatever level, but especially among the higher ranks with political exposure at home, I don’t know how you’d trust the State Department to keep your confidence after this. Remarkable impotence indeed.

Update: Wikileaks is back online and armed with a characteristically smug, self-serving introduction to the documents:

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what’s going on behind the scenes.

Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington – the country’s first President – could not tell a lie. If the administrations of his successors lived up to the same principle, today’s document flood would be a mere embarrassment. Instead, the US Government has been warning governments — even the most corrupt — around the world about the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures.

Ah, hypocrisy, the all-purpose excuse. We see that as a defense whenever some conservative sex scandal is exposed too: The aim, transparently, is to embarrass the target, but since that’s too petty a reason to justify so vicious a tactic, the exposure is unfailingly dressed up as some sort of high-minded attempt to make the target “live by his principles.” If you take this argument seriously, any confidential communication between government officials should be fair game for leaking so long as it somehow contradicts or questions, however glancingly, state policy. (Hypocrisy!) But of course, they’re not limiting publication to only those documents that undermine official State Department positions; as noted above in the context of Turkey’s foreign minister, a lot of this stuff will simply be bits of intelligence about various international actors and speculation about their motives. Nothing “hypocritical” about it — but mighty embarrassing. In fact, there’s nothing “hypocritical” about arguably the biggest revelation thus far, the report of North Korea shipping missiles to Iran. That sort of cooperation goes straight back to Bush’s “axis of evil” speech; theories about collaboration between the two are a staple of proliferation analyses. There’s no U.S. government “lie” that needs to be exposed there, in other words. It’s simply a case of Wikileaks trying to weaken America’s hand by revealing some of the cards that it’s holding.

Two other points. One: Note that they don’t say they wouldn’t have published the documents if the crucial hypocrisy component was missing. On the contrary, in their sonorous meditation about George Washington, they suggest that they would have done so anyway even though the damage to U.S. interests would have been greatly diminished. That’s further evidence that it’s confidentiality itself that they object to, not hypocrisy, and it follows Simon Jenkins’s lead in ignoring the usual balancing act when weighing the merits of a leak between the sensitivity of the information and the public’s interest in knowing about it. Wikileaks would have you believe that confidential government communications are so inherently anti-democratic that exposing them is virtually always in the public interest, no matter what collateral damage might result. No country in the world has ever followed that standard and no country ever will. Two: To the extent that they do take the hypocrisy standard seriously, does that mean that less democratic nations aren’t fair game for leaks because, hey, at least they’re living by their principles? Wikileaks’s lack of interest to date in revealing state secrets of, say, China is mighty conspicuous given that cracking Beijing’s culture of secrecy would be a far greater intel coup than publishing U.S. diplomatic cables and might even have major political repercussions for the Chinese regime. But then, China isn’t “hypocritical,” you see. And of course China also isn’t likely to tolerate damaging leaks like this the way liberal western nations are.

I’ll leave you with this thought, via Danger Room:

Ronald Neumann, who served as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2005 to 2007, tells Danger Room he fears the impact of forced candor on U.S. foreign relations. “A man might say things to his wife about his mother-in-law that he would be horrified to hear her repeat to her mother and the doing of which might even put great strain on his marriage,” Neumann says. “That is what a lot of classification is about. I believe it serves the public. There is always an argument for publicizing malfeasance. I do not believe there is one for making more difficult just getting on with the nation’s diplomatic business.”

Update: If there’s a big winner thus far from the leaks, the emerging consensus is that — irony of ironies — it’s Israel. The JPost is crowing about vindication, pointing to the urgency of Sunni demands in private chats with the U.S. to do something about Iran’s nuclear program. Says Eli Lake, “Wikileaks cables suggest actually that Israel was less bullish on bombing Iran than most Arab states.” And Omri Ceren takes it a step further, wondering why it is that Sunni Arabs seem so focused in the cables on hitting Iran when American leftists are forever insisting that (a) the Iranian threat is overstated and (b) a Palestinian state is the true key to regional peace and eventual Iranian disarmament. Good question.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5

Uh-Oh…

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:32 PM

The Gray Lady wouldn’t do anything to endanger Americans, now would she???
//////////////////////

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Who keeps giving Wikileaks these documents?

irishspy on November 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Guantanamo… Use it for these freaks.

El_Terrible on November 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM

So, if we’d actually dealt with Assange after he released the military documents we wouldn’t be in this mess. The chickens are coming home to roost Bammy…

Oh, and I have to give Obama some credit here…he is failing in ways I even never predicted…

18-1 on November 28, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Who keeps giving Wikileaks these documents?

irishspy on November 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Well, the military docs turned out to be one low level leftist. The problem is that all the external security in the world won’t stop internal agents.

Of course, this is partially why we used to hang spies.

18-1 on November 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM

AP, you’re reading? You’re such a RINO!

Nethicus on November 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

State has been in the hands of progressives for a couple of generations. Koh is just trying to protect his progressive brethren. Maybe we can now do a house cleaning of State because all the progressives have damaged its credibility.

chemman on November 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

The point is to weaken the US in any way, so it is no more powerful or influential than any other nation.

The policies of current occupant of the White House could have the same result.

The US is too rich, too powerful, and too free for the likes of socialists.

Wethal on November 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Suspected source of the leaks…

d1carter on November 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Who keeps giving Wikileaks these documents?

irishspy on November 28, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Remember, this is the administration that was duped by a Taliban imposter.

SouthernGent on November 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Covert operations against an enemy combatant….hmmmm. Assange….. look over your shoulder “friend”.

afotia on November 28, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Pictures on Mr Manning’s Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on “the battlefield”.

Uh…wouldn’t this be a violation of DADT?

18-1 on November 28, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Suspected source of the leaks…

d1carter on November 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Oh hey, look:

Pictures on Mr Manning’s Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on “the battlefield”.

Fun.

amerpundit on November 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Unfortunately, the ‘dirt’ being disclosed on Obama thru this leaked embassy communications traffic is a relatively inconsequential consideration. The real damage is on the crypto-analysis side: In cryptology, these leaked messages are known as ‘plaintext’.

Countries such Russia, China, U.K., India, Israel, France, Germany, etc., etc. will now go to their hard drives and pull up the encrypted copy of those messages which they recorded and stored when the message was first sent.

They now have the encrypted version to compare with the plaintext version, and literally hundreds of thousands of messages to compare for frequency analysis.

This potentially could be an absolute nightmare for the U.S.

alwyr on November 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM

After a while the worthiness of allowing free speech even when it’s painful becomes dimmed by the damage being done to the reputation to the U.S. and the increased likelihood that these activities will encourage our enemies.

Someone should’ve taken down this moron months ago. Either with a disinformation campaign to discredit him or to entangle him with criminal proceedings. (No sweden doesn’t count. That’s just him being him.)

That we haven’t is an indication to some that we COULDN’T and that is where the danger lies.

Some people/states you just have to not worry about why they respect you or not but they have to respect you.

It’s why the japanese bombed pearl harbor: they sensed weakness and a lack of decisiveness so they struck. Thinking that we would back off and cower while they assumed power.

It’s why Osama targeted the trade center and so far HE hasn’t been proved completely wrong about our will to fight the true enemy.

ISLAM!

jcw46 on November 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM

I agree this has to be more about personal embarrassment for Obama than national security or people’s lives. We already know Obama couldn’t care less about the latter.

rrpjr on November 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM

“Unless they’re being DOS’d purely out of spite, why bother?”

The only thing I can think of is DOS would not make Wikileaks the initial publisher to publicly divulge the documents. Doesn’t that mean something legally? It seems to me that, say, if the NYT is now the first, then the FBI can go after them.

Dusty on November 28, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Bunch of hogwash! This is just a make-work project for the diplomat class to keep them employed for the next century just sorting it all out!

Dread Pirate Roberts VI on November 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Whoever gave the docs to WikiLeaks needs to get the death penalty for treason. This causes totally intolerable damage to our national security. And the only way to stop it is to make a big example out of whoever has done this.

Iblis on November 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I thought the “embarrassing” part would be who is actually cooperating with the U.S.. It’s hard for me to imagine that someone would put “an unflattering US assessment of UK PM David Cameron” into a professional memo or call the leader of another country “Hitler”. If these are Bush era memorandum I am going to be really surprised and disappointed.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

I’m off to go read. Back later with more.

I have no interest in knowing what is contained inside confidential documents that were obtained illegally through treason. You shouldn’t be reading them either.

KSgop on November 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

As much as the US needs to do a better job protecting classified materials, there’s also the issue that far too much material is (over-) classified for reasons other than true national security.

Perhaps sunshine will make a good disinfectant….

NeighborhoodCatLady on November 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Oh hey, look:

Pictures on Mr Manning’s Facebook page include photos of him on school trips during his time in Wales and at a gay rights rally, where he is holding up a placard demanding equality on “the battlefield”.

Fun.

amerpundit on November 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Exactly what are you trying to say?

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

IMO all the American entities participating in this should have some sort of negative consequences from the govt even if it is little more than shunning/freezing them out of info.

katiejane on November 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Ruh roh, Teh Won will be embarrassed? Now we can’t have that, can we.

petefrt on November 28, 2010 at 1:52 PM

HotAir, in publishing or paraphrasing excepts from these documents, is no better than WikiLeaks or any of the other “news” organizations publishing them

KSgop on November 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM

I was trying to figure out how this little weasel could be allowed to do such damage to the country without any apparent recourse, and then I remembered that the “Commander-in-Chief” is getting away same thing, so…

Dopenstrange on November 28, 2010 at 1:54 PM

National Humint Collection Directive

Why are they collecting Hummels at the UN?

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 1:55 PM

From the NYT article:

The Times has withheld from articles and removed from documents it is posting online the names of some people who spoke privately to diplomats and might be at risk if they were publicly identified. The Times is also withholding some passages or entire cables whose disclosure could compromise American intelligence efforts.

Huh?? Since when did this become protocol?? Oh yeah, thats right…when ‘The One’ was immaculated

lsutiger on November 28, 2010 at 1:56 PM

If these are Bush era memorandum I am going to be really surprised and disappointed.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

If it were Bush, instead of Øbama at risk for embarrassment here, the most we’d hear from the WH about it is *crickets*, don’t you think?

petefrt on November 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

I never thought I would agree with Hillary, but spying at the UN is a good thing.

sandee on November 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

The information to be collected included personal credit card information

It’s nice that there is a plan for the national debt.

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Exactly what are you trying to say?

Prep your “one gay soldier traitor means all gay soldiers are traitors” brush and await further orders. =]

Jeddite on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

KSgop on November 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM

I hope you stretched before you made that jump. So far Allahpundit has only linked other news organizations.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

sandee on November 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

Ditto.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

alwyr on November 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM

My understanding of cryptology, and in particular frequency analysis in the context of military-strength encryption, is admittedly not that of an expert, but isn’t the whole point of an encryption system’s being described as “military strength” partly because frequency analysis is of little to no use in breaking it?

greggriffith on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

HotAir, in publishing or paraphrasing excepts from these documents, is no better than WikiLeaks or any of the other “news” organizations publishing them

KSgop on November 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Because if Hot Air ignores the major story, everyone else will also ignore it?

AngusMc on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Iblis on November 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

This, a million times over.

Ryan Anthony on November 28, 2010 at 2:00 PM

petefrt on November 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM

I’m trying to be fair but yes, I do agree. Especially since they all but ignored the publication of troop information and gave only token resistance to its’ publication.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Because if Hot Air ignores the major story, everyone else will also ignore it?

AngusMc on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

If the information is published elsewhere or not, the documents are still secret and it is still a crime.

KSgop on November 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Because if Hot Air ignores the major story, everyone else will also ignore it?

AngusMc on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM La, la ,la,la la,la Don’t hear any of this(puts fingers in ears.)

sandee on November 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

KSgop on November 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

DHS can shut down any site it wants to these days. So, if it feels it has been wronged, it can take action.

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Exactly what are you trying to say?

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

He’s calling for “equality” for himself at the same time he’s undermining national security. That would be like Abdulmutallab picketing for universal health care.

amerpundit on November 28, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I think the UN is going to have to open it’s next General Assembly with a big group hug after all this.

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM

The information to be collected included personal credit card information, frequent flyer customer numbers, as well as e-mail and telephone accounts. In many cases the State Department also required “biometric information,” “passwords” and “personal encryption keys.” In the US, the term biometric information generally refers to fingerprints, passport photos and iris scans, among other things.

What in the world would Hillary do with this information?!
Call them on their unlisted secret private line?
Use their frequent flier miles?
And isn’t espionage the purview of the CIA?
Of course that didn’t stop her getting her hands on the FBI files of over 500 Republicans when she was Co-President.

If this exposes covers Hillary and the feckless Foggy Bottom crew in sh*t, then so be it.
The U.N. is worthless.
The only worthwhile thing the U.N. ever did was to move the Temple of Abu Simbel in Egypt.

Jenfidel on November 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Thank you, Allahpundit, I am sure this isn’t the way you planned to end this week. Appreciate your work.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM

He’s calling for “equality” for himself at the same time he’s undermining national security. That would be like Abdulmutallab picketing for universal health care.

amerpundit on November 28, 2010 at 2:04 PM

Gotcha. :)

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM

The information to be collected included personal credit card information

It’s nice that there is a plan for the national debt.

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

You’d think they could get that info from the high end pimps and madams in NYC. Somebody see if Spitzer can call in a few favors…

trubble on November 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM

Is that a step up or down from the circle jerk it usually opens with?

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

Chances are that our behavior in foreign affairs has been about as Chicago-thuggish as it has in affairs domestique. Smart Thug power. Ugly.

petefrt on November 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Update: The Times claims it’s taken precautions to protect sources, including agreeing to some — but not all — redactions proposed by the White House: “The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.”

Wow, still carrying 0bama’s water, eh?

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Has the soldier who stole and turned over these documents been executed before a firing squad?

If not, why not?

fogw on November 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM

Exactly what are you trying to say?

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 1:51 PM

Here’s what *I* say:

Manning is afflicted by a mental illness that manifests itself as same-sex attraction, AND a narcissistic disorder that leads him to believe that compromising the security of the United States is fair payback for lack of “equality” for gays in the military.

How’s that?

greggriffith on November 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM

The US is too rich, too powerful, and too free for the likes of socialists.

Wethal on November 28, 2010 at 1:39 PM

You, sir, are living in the past.

The U.S. is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world, our military is over-stretched and severely weakened due to our policing the world and our nation-building follies, we lose more liberty with every day CONgress is in session, with every EO O Duce signs and every new rule our various alphabet bureaucracies decree, and in case you hadn’t noticed, Fascialism is the new American system.

God bless wikileaks.

Rae on November 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM

KSgop on November 28, 2010 at 2:01 PM

“Well, apparently, there’s nothing “top secret” in the files; six percent qualify as “secret,” 40.5 percent are “classified,” and the rest aren’t confidential at all.”

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM

frequency analysis is of little to no use in breaking it?

greggriffith on November 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Frequency analysis (actually signal analysis) in and of itself does not allow breaking a code. It does give insight on who is sending and maybe what, and in WWII, was of material assistance. The UK, the US and Germany all used signal analysis in WWII to get a “crib” to assist in breaking codes.

Todays codes are driven by computer algorithms, long random numbers and special keys, which reduces the use of signal analysis for code-breaking. Signal analysis has other uses today.

NaCly dog on November 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

I have no issues with Clinton (or anyone) ordering spying on the U.N. It’s a baby step in what I would do with the U.N.

SouthernGent on November 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

…requested by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to spy on the diplomats of other countries at the United Nations.

Shrillary +1

petefrt on November 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Wow, still carrying 0bama’s water, eh?

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

They may be carrying Obama’s water, but the European publications won’t. The NYT will be more than happy, I’m sure to print anything in these papers that implicate Bush.

sandee on November 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

petefrt on November 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

But they have amazing self-esteem.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM

How the hell do these “low level leftists” have access to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of classified documents?
Put these bast*rds in prison doing hard time!
I have to believe though that someone higher up in the Administration is less outraged at these leaks than I am…

edgehead on November 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Tidbit
Putin nicknamed “alpha-male”. No official nickname for the One?

Rea1ityCheck on November 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Did Grahamnesty have botox injections? He is looking very plasticy on Chris Wallace today.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM

I wonder when wikileaks will turn to the ObamaKare secrets?

tarpon on November 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM

I’ve been following it live so far at the Guardian ( http://bit.ly/fKgL1S). What I’ve seen so far?

Bo-ring.

S. Weasel on November 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Is that a step up or down from the circle jerk it usually opens with?

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Not really sure. Still say Turtle Bay needs a bulldozer.

Here’s what *I* say:

Manning is afflicted by a mental illness that manifests itself as same-sex attraction, AND a narcissistic disorder that leads him to believe that compromising the security of the United States is fair payback for lack of “equality” for gays in the military.

How’s that?

greggriffith on November 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM

I’m not looking to derail the thread on another topic, so I’ll digress.

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

¿ɹıɐ ʇoɥ uo ʞɹoʍ sıɥʇ sǝop

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

It’s amazing the Times is redacting anything. In U.S.A. v NY Times SCOTUS held for the Times publication of The Pentagon Papers. Receiving and publishing classified info is protected by First Amendment.The agent who stole or leaked it is vulnerable to US Code Title 18.

xkaydet65 on November 28, 2010 at 2:15 PM

sandee on November 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

That’s true, but so far it looks as though there’s going to be enough to go around – since Hillary wasn’t Bush’s Secretary of State.

Ryan Anthony on November 28, 2010 at 2:17 PM

It’s hard for me to imagine that someone would… call the leader of another country “Hitler”.

Agreed. Most likely someone is misreading the memo, and the State Department employee actually called the (previous) leader of our country Hitler.

Fabozz on November 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Is this going to take care of any real thought that Mrs. Clinton might have had for running as POTUS? Is it going to make the Dept. of State look more half-a$$ then usual?

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

¿ɹıɐ ʇoɥ uo ʞɹoʍ sıɥʇ sǝop

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

OK…this is just awesome.
*smoke and mirrors…mostly mirrors*

Electrongod on November 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Fabozz on November 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Much more likely.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

…isn’t the whole point of an encryption system’s being described as “military strength” partly because frequency analysis is of little to no use in breaking it?

Correct. Even the encryption protocol your web browser uses (which is honestly not very different from what the State Department uses) is invulnerable to known-plaintext attacks. These documents may cause Obama 99 problems, but cryptanalysis ain’t one of them.

Fabozz on November 28, 2010 at 2:21 PM

ɯd 02:2 ʇɐ 0102 ’82 ɹǝqɯǝʌou uo poƃouoɹʇɔǝןǝ
sɹoɹɹıɯ ʎןʇsoɯ˙˙˙sɹoɹɹıɯ puɐ ǝʞoɯs*

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Hillary ordered spying at the UN

Well, good for her! :)

Blake on November 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Oh yeah….this will make a better world. All the dirty laundry of nations and individuals on the rack at you local mall.

Limerick on November 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Ever notice how people like Assange never release secrets from countries like Russia and China? If you are an honest to God mass murdering tyrannical regime you have nothing to fear from this rapist/leaker.

The man is just a spiteful anti American little ass wipe who picks on people he knows will not respond by killing him.

Terrye on November 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

They disclose technical details of secret US-Russian nuclear missile negotiations in Geneva, and include a profile of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who they say is accompanied everywhere by a “voluptuous blonde” Ukrainian nurse.

Lorien, is that you?

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

My late mother would say “Loose lips sink ships” if she heard about this.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Other cables reveal King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urging the U.S. to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, which does fall into the “stuff everyone suspected” category but isn’t going to help Sunni/Shiite relations, especially if things come to a head in Lebanon over the findings of the Hariri tribunal. Among others urging action: Jordan, Bahrain, and Abu Dhabi.

It’s bipartisan!! Let’s roll.

the_nile on November 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Diplomats from other countries, aka, spies. We should be spying on them.

Blake on November 28, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Lorien, is that you?

JetBoy on November 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

I don’t normally dress up as a voluptuous female nurse. I premur the demur asian look.

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 2:28 PM

A note from a hard-left liberal:

I am about as left-wing as you can get, and someone who hates just about everything Hot Air posters believe in. My main reason for posting on Hot Air is to object vigorously to the self-delusion I see articulated on a minute-to-minute basis.

That said, I love America, and I have to say I am absolutely sickened that the New York Times would publish this material. It’s beyond disturbing to me.

The justification given by the Times in its special reader’s note is journalistically unethical, misguided, and arrogant by any standard of journalism I’ve encountered in my many years in the industry: “As daunting as it is to publish such material over official objections, it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name.”

By that standard, ANY state secret is too much secrecy for the Times.

This newspaper has allied itself with our enemies in a way that strikes me as the institutional equivalent of manslaughter — a well-intended, reckless, and fatal mistake. I am sickened by the foolishness and the lack of basic patriotism of these editors. As far as I’m concerned, it’s time to start thinking about charges, whether civil or criminal.

Why, Times idiots, why did you do this???????? Bastards.

bifidis on November 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

It’s bipartisan!! Let’s roll.

the_nile on November 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Did you forget who is CIC?

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design, that are much more powerful than anything Washington has publicly conceded that Tehran has in its arsenal, diplomatic cables show.

Kicking the can on Iran/NK and now we see they were covering up for it. Not only have O-bots been pre-occupied with their domestic agenda at the expense of foreign policy, but they’ve also been covering up the seriousness of the emerging crisis abroad. Bombshell indeed.

petefrt on November 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Why, Times idiots, why did you do this when Obama was President.

bifidis on November 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I think this is more accurate. The silence (or approval) from the left during the Bush years speaks volumes.

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Secret American intelligence assessments have concluded that Iran has obtained a cache of advanced missiles, based on a Russian design, that are much more powerful than anything Washington has publicly conceded that Tehran has in its arsenal, diplomatic cables show.

Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a cable dated Feb. 24 of this year. The cable is a detailed, highly classified account of a meeting between top Russian officials and an American delegation led by Vann H. Van Diepen, an official with the State Department’s nonproliferation division who, as a national intelligence officer several years ago, played a crucial role in the 2007 assessment of Iran’s nuclear capacity…

None of this is news. The BM-25/R-27/SS-N-6 is already known to be in service with Iran.

sharrukin on November 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

bifidis on November 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I’ll say “Welcome Aboard” if you will promise me that you would have written the same comment if W was in office during the leaks?

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

+1

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:33 PM

Given the fragility of the situation in North Korea, is now the moment to make bombshell public accusations against them?

Why, is Kobe Bryant’s signing hand cramping up? As long as we still have cash, cognac and basketballs to send, there is no limit to the public accusations we can afford to make against Lil’ Kim. He’s in it for the money, we send him the money, encounter resolved.

Fabozz on November 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM

I’m accompanied everywhere by a voluptuous California Girl. She is laughing as I type this.

SurferDoc on November 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM

It’s probably not the feds who are responsible, simply because knocking the servers offline at this point achieves nothing.

So? Does the gvt. never do anything stupid?

RedNewEnglander on November 28, 2010 at 2:35 PM

actually the hard left hates the unipolar world hegemony of the US….or at least that was their meme after the USSR fell. The US is always their focus for hatred…too big, too strong, too much carbon, too exploitative of indigenous people and their natural resources.

so where it is State or Defense it is all the same to them.

r keller on November 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM

SurferDoc on November 28, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Real dolls with the optional giggle/moan track doesn’t count!

lorien1973 on November 28, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Why isn’t Mara Liasson being fired by NPR?

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

BOOOOOOOOOOSH!!!1!1!!1ELEVENTY

RedNewEnglander on November 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM

The Gray Lady wouldn’t do anything to endanger Americans, now would she???
//////////////////////

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM

It is a little shocking they would do this to the Obama administration.

Silver lining – Obama is just as “evil” as Bush, right?

Why aren’t they trying that kid that gave this stuff to Wikileaks with treason (including the death penalty)? That would send a strong message to the next punk that thinks he’s cool with his top security clearance and wants to “save” the world.

ramrants on November 28, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 5