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 4 5

also, I think a little anarchism supports the Marxist view.

Ayers considers himself to be an anarchist and small c communist.

whatever.

r keller on November 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

At the request of the Obama administration, The New York Times has agreed not to publish the text of the cable.

How this would have read three years ago:

Ignoring the request of the Bush administration, The New York Times has agreed to publish the text of the cable, to acquire more cables, and to conduct further checkbook journalism. If you want to learn more, read Paul Krugman.

KingGold on November 28, 2010 at 2:39 PM

I’m pretty sure she is real. You don’t have to pull a string to get her started and there is no way to make her stop. (Now, she is frowning, so I’ll quite while I’m ahead. Barely.)

SurferDoc on November 28, 2010 at 2:40 PM

The most embarrassing information for the US would be direct honest assessments of the Bamster by European and other leaders. Fortunately for us that material will not be in this batch, with the exception of friendly country intercepts.

More on the advanced missiles at the NYT link, looks like something the Iranians are sure to reverse engineer. North Korea cooperating with Iran is a nightmare and good reason to blockade anything leaving the Norkies.

slickwillie2001 on November 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

Iblis on November 28, 2010 at 1:50 PM

O agree – as long as there are not major pinishments we will have the risk of some whiney a$$ who thinks he knows better than everyone else ignoring security for reasons not valid.

People who dismiss this type of incident don’t always know what the long term consequences. I don’t dispute that the feds may over-classify but that’s not really the call of your average person who doesn’t normally know the backstory to things.

katiejane on November 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

“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.

stuff like this is bad. it takes a real hatred for someone to release stuff like this.

a very succesful strategy of the hard Left is to make the US an unreliable partner. Secrets will be leaked, the policies will be changed, thereby leaving our friends in the lurch (possibly a deadly lurch)

also, a favorite game is to out spies.

again, the hatred runs deep.

r keller on November 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Is US Foreign Policy Crippled Following Latest Wikileaks Dump?

And as the attached front page of tomorrow’s Der Spiegel shows, according to the unclassified US embassy cables, America had something quite unpleasant to say about virtually everyone.
[...]
the far bigger question will be how the once great American superpower could have allowed such a huge oversight in traditionally classified diplomacy. Very soon the once-legendary US foreign service department will be butt of all jokes.

Rae on November 28, 2010 at 2:47 PM

¿ɹıɐ ʇoɥ uo ʞɹoʍ sıɥʇ sǝop

˙sǝop ʇı ǝsɹnoɔ ɟO

unclesmrgol on November 28, 2010 at 2:49 PM

None of this could form part of the 2012 re-election campaign, could it? Nah…

In day-by-day detail, the cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, tell the disparate diplomatic back stories of two administrations pressed from all sides to confront Tehran. They show how President George W. Bush, hamstrung by the complexities of Iraq and suspicions that he might attack Iran, struggled to put together even modest sanctions.

They also offer new insights into how President Obama, determined to merge his promise of “engagement” with his vow to raise the pressure on the Iranians, assembled a coalition that agreed to impose an array of sanctions considerably harsher than any before attempted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Drained Brain on November 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Think of the timing and the exit strategies of many of the top players in the O admin.

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 2:50 PM

I have heard it hinted that Obama’s secret documents (i.e. birth certificate, college transcripts, passport, etc) might be included in the leaks.

theaddora on November 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

So this is how ObaMao was going to empty Gitmo?

h/t freerepublic:

Check this out from the NY Slimes:

Bargaining to empty the Guantánamo Bay prison:

When American diplomats pressed other countries to resettle detainees, they became reluctant players in a State Department version of “Let’s Make a Deal.”

Slovenia was told to take a prisoner if it wanted to meet with President Obama,

While the island nation of Kiribati was offered incentives worth millions of dollars to take in a group of detainees, cables from diplomats recounted. The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=2&hp

onlineanalyst on November 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

theaddora on November 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Now, that would be awesome

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

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

Why stop with realizing this just about the NYT?

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.

If you can get over that attitude for this story maybe you can start realizing you do not need to “hate” everything on hotair and start looking at it objectivley instead of snidely.

bluemarlin on November 28, 2010 at 2:53 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

____________________________

Greg…. Actually the answer to your question is ‘No’. Every single encrypted message in the history of mankind (outside of a ‘one-time-pad’ message which is in fact completely unbreakable) is susceptible to being ‘broken’. Including, by the way, ‘military strength’ ciphers – such as the Japanese Purple Code in WWII.

A codebreaker does not need to know how the message is being encrypted; does not need to know how convoluted the encryption process is, e.g. whether it’s based upon the vibrations per second of a cesium atom (38khz) or some other esoteric encrypting formula. (BTW, this would be an abysmally easy “code” to solve since it is based upon a constant recurring pattern having a mere 38,000 repetition cycle)

Again, outside of a one-time-pad, every encrypted message has a key “floating” beneath the surface. At some point however, that ‘key’ must repeat – even if the repetition cycle is millions of characters in length. And that is how codes are broken; even the most sophisticated of codes, including those of so-called “military strength”.

Obviously, any number of nations now have the plaintext message to compare to the encrypted version (and having thousands of plaintext messages – such as those which have been leaked – to use for comparison purposes). That could represent an absolute cryptography nightmare for the U.S. The Wikileak documents could serve as a deciphering Rosetta stone for our most sophisticated enciphering schemes.

alwyr on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

At the request of the Obama administration, The New York Times has agreed not to publish the text of the cable.

Well, well, well. Isn’t that interesting. When the Bush Administration did the same thing, the New York Times gave them the finger.

SoulGlo on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Two things about all of this continue to bother me. First, if this material was all obtained by the same young army guy who leaked the video, as I’ve heard, why are US government computers networked in such a way that pretty much everything is accessible to an unscrupulous person with security clearance? Isn’t that really stupid?

Second, why treat Wikileaks (and Assange in particular) as news media, when he’s funnelling stolen classified material to news media so that they will publish it; whether an intended or an unintended consequence, he is ipso facto making classified documents to America’s enemies. During a time of war. Why doesn’t the Justice Department press charges against him, as they would do with any other person exposing classified material to America’s enemies?

ProfessorMiao on November 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Glad to see the Times somewhat cooperating with the Obama administration. I’m sure they would have were this the Bush administration…oh, wait, uh, see page 176 of Decision Points…hypocrites…

churchill995 on November 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Maybe this is being done at the behest of the zero.

He’s kneecapped us financially, socialized our industries, depleted the treasury, usurped power from our elected Congress, decimated our space programs, embarrassed our Nation on the world wide stage, repeatedly made a buffoon of himself and US, and now for the grande finale? Destroy US relationships will friend and foe alike.

Mission accomplished?

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Britt Hume’s part three special is just coming on…

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Maybe this is being done at the behest of the zero.

He’s kneecapped us financially, socialized our industries, depleted the treasury, usurped power from our elected Congress, decimated our space programs, embarrassed our Nation on the world wide stage, repeatedly made a buffoon of himself and US, and now for the grande finale? Destroy US relationships will friend and foe alike.

Mission accomplished?

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 3:00 PM

I doubt it, but if it was true then the grande finale would be him admitting he wasn’t eligible for the presidency (even if its untrue). The effect would be… exciting?

sharrukin on November 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Drudge has undates also one this issue. Wow, I bet those in dc are trying to figure out how to get out of this mess! One would wonder if some ‘contract’ has been given out for assange?
L

letget on November 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM

you know I was at first agianst these leaks but I have come around to the belief that our elites have no idea what they ar edoing and anything that shines a light on this fact is a good thing in the long run for our desire for better government. And this inlcudes both the Bush/Obama regimes…

these documents show they are clueless.

unseen on November 28, 2010 at 3:05 PM

bifidis on November 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

Well said. And if you can reason this out correctly, you are not as far left as you think you are.

BierManVA on November 28, 2010 at 3:07 PM

OmahaConservative@3:02,
The 4th will come on tonight at 9ct. These are wonderful!
L

letget on November 28, 2010 at 3:07 PM

WikiLeaks = Trust fund for the Obamas’ children.

Connie on November 28, 2010 at 3:08 PM

The 4th will come on tonight at 9ct. These are wonderful!
L

letget on November 28, 2010 at 3:07 PM

Yes, they really are.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

…every encrypted message has a key “floating” beneath the surface. At some point however, that ‘key’ must repeat – even if the repetition cycle is millions of characters in length.

alwyr on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

My understanding is that the only way the private key can show up in the encrypted text is through pure coincidence, not as a necessary product of encryption; and that even if it does show up, there is no way to determine that it is, in fact, the private key. And, without the private key, the encrypted text is worthless.

Not trying to start an argument with you, just trying to think this through. Please correct me if my assumptions are wrong (better yet, explain why, because I’m always eager to learn more about encryption).

greggriffith on November 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Second, why treat Wikileaks (and Assange in particular) as news media, when he’s funnelling stolen classified material to news media so that they will publish it; whether an intended or an unintended consequence, he is ipso facto making classified documents to America’s enemies. During a time of war. Why doesn’t the Justice Department press charges against him, as they would do with any other person exposing classified material to America’s enemies?

ProfessorMiao on November 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM

The Assman is not a journalist, he’s not a freedom-fighter, he’s not a whistleblower. All that is nonsense. He’s an information anarchist, and as with all anarchists, there’s no justification, moral or otherwise, for what he does.

I say the kid needs a bullet, and the job should be farmed out to another service like the ISI.

slickwillie2001 on November 28, 2010 at 3:10 PM

He is either really brave or really stupid. I know after POing so many governments I’d spend the rest of my life sleeping with one eye open.

TheBigOldDog on November 28, 2010 at 3:12 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

No. Marching in a rally supporting homosexual rights or even going to a gay bar by itself is not enough to start an investigation.
His commander probably suspected, but unless he was caught in flagrante delicto or in lorien’s case dressed as a nurse (asian or Ukranian) nothing can be done.

LincolntheHun on November 28, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Obama held up diplomatic access due to gitmo? Let’s see which is more important Gitmo or relations with Solvania? Or Beliguim?

SoS clinton should resign her post ove rthese documents. They show her are inepte and placing partisan goals ove rthe good of the country….in fac tthe entire diplomatic corps should be asked for their resingation. We are governeed by a bunch of children.

unseen on November 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

bifidis on November 28, 2010 at 2:30 PM

You’re not as hard left as you think you are… or to be more accurate, you’re not as hard left as they come here in America, because there are plenty of people on the left here in America who think what the Times, Assange and WikiLeaks have done is marvelous.

While I’d probably stop short of saying that Obama thinks this way, I’d definitely go so far as to say that there are several members of congress who think so, and a much higher percentage of the MSM who think so.

greggriffith on November 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM

How in God’s name is this Wikileaks guy still free to post more docs? He should have been arrested and imprisoned a long time ago. (And the gay military guy who helped Wikileaks in protest of DADT should be executed for treason.)

Lothar on November 28, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Obama held up diplomatic access due to gitmo? Let’s see which is more important Gitmo or relations with Solvania? Or Beliguim?

unseen on November 28, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Obamateurism.

the_nile on November 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

The effect would be… exciting?

sharrukin on November 28, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Very interesting idea. It would destroy the credibility of the media and leftists within their own echo chamber. Even better would be to release the names of media figures that knew , and were silent.

Where are the Wikileaks memos on Soros to Obama e-mails?

NaCly dog on November 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Part three has been the eye opener for me. I am more convinced than ever about the futility of loving a political party instead of an ideology. People, especially those seeking power, can really mess up a party.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Very interesting idea. It would destroy the credibility of the media and leftists within their own echo chamber. Even better would be to release the names of media figures that knew , and were silent.

NaCly dog on November 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

It would create a constitutional crisis as regards to ObamaCare, legislation, civil and military appointments and Obama appointments to the Supreme Court would decide the legality?

sharrukin on November 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

The only folks with open-mouthed looks of shock on their faces – liberals and their fantasy view on foreign relations.

BKeyser on November 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I say the kid needs a bullet, and the job should be farmed out to another service like the ISI.

slickwillie2001 on November 28, 2010 at 3:10 PM

I disagree. If he were JDAM’d instead, it’d make people very reluctant to share the same address as this kind of scumsucker.

cthulhu on November 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

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

Au contraire, this sounds exactly like Smart Power. Clueless. With Obama it really matters when it’s personal.

Basilsbest on November 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

I am glad the administration begged Wiki not to publish these things right before they did it anyway. This continual projection of power is awe inspiring. Nothing says United States of America like the Obama administration.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 3:28 PM

This just proves the point that having sophisticated encryption for our diplomatic communications does absolutely nothing for security if our own people inside our own agencies are taking our plain text copy.

Wikileaks isn’t the problem here. The problem is the individuals that we trust with that information apparently can’t be trusted with it. Wikileaks didn’t intercept and decode this information, it was handed the information on a silver platter. This isn’t about Wikileaks wanting to harm the US, it is about people inside our own security agencies and people handling our sensitive communications wanting to harm the US. Blaming Wikileaks is like blaming the television set for the programming it displays.

We need a very public execution here. Maybe more than one.

crosspatch on November 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM

My understanding is that the only way the private key can show up in the encrypted text is through pure coincidence, not as a necessary product of encryption; and that even if it does show up, there is no way to determine that it is, in fact, the private key. And, without the private key, the encrypted text is worthless.

Not trying to start an argument with you, just trying to think this through. Please correct me if my assumptions are wrong (better yet, explain why, because I’m always eager to learn more about encryption).

greggriffith on November 28, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Having corresponding plain text and cipher text reduces the search space for cracking the encryption. They are looking for two things: the encryption algorithm and the key. The key is easy to change. A lot of work has to go into the algorithm to insure it is secure, and so it cannot be changed as easily. These leaks give information about the both the key and the algorithm.

This seems to be done out of pure hate for the human race. It increases the chance of war, which benefits no one. The fact that Obama is doing nothing about this is clear evidence he is completely incompetent.

pedestrian on November 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Watched it earlier, but was a little buzzed, so I am rewatching it now. Makes me very happy we now have the Tea Party shaking up the party.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Where are the Wikileaks memos on Soros to Obama e-mails?

NaCly dog on November 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Probably not forthcoming. I wouldn’t rule out these two clowns being directly involved in this mess.

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 3:36 PM

OmahaConservative@3:30,
What struck hubby and myself is how Sarah seems to be going about what she is doing as Reagan did when he ran. I know, gobs of people don’t like Sarah, thinks she is not fit to run, thinks she is stupid, but they thought the same of Reagan.
L

letget on November 28, 2010 at 3:37 PM

This guy is an Enemy of the State, if his host country doesn’t turn him over we should stop relations and honestly this guy deserves the Death Penalty once in our custody. period, anyone that disagrees has no since of history, the reality of the world we live in and is an all in all pu$$y

jp on November 28, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Oh, and that “eblow to the face during the pick up game”?

/think again.

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 3:37 PM

This seems to be done out of pure hate for the human race. It increases the chance of war, which benefits no one. The fact that Obama is doing nothing about this is clear evidence he is completely incompetent.

pedestrian on November 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Liberals.

the_nile on November 28, 2010 at 3:38 PM

This seems to be done out of pure hate for the human race. It increases the chance of war, which benefits no one. The fact that Obama is doing nothing about this is clear evidence he is completely incompetent.

pedestrian on November 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM

postmodern man marches closer to its wish for suicide is another way to accurately describe this

jp on November 28, 2010 at 3:42 PM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Amen, and it sure didn’t help my view of Barry Goldwater. Some of the snarkier folks at National Review might want to take a walk down Memory Lane also, if they don’t want to appear to be the rubber stamp of the Republican Party.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM

wonder if anyone has created a proper facebook page for this clown, as well as informative spot to educate the young dummies likely to think this clown is some sort of hero

jp on November 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM

letget on November 28, 2010 at 3:37 PM

They are vastly underestimating her, and us. Besides, many who voted for 0bama seem to be very weary with 0bamafatigue already…

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I have heard it hinted that Obama’s secret documents (i.e. birth certificate, college transcripts, passport, etc) might be included in the leaks.

theaddora on November 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Well you know that can’t be true because that would actually be of public interest and service and that is not what any of this is about.

whbates on November 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive

As much as I dislike these documents being stolen and then made public, I must admit a certain amount of “ha-ha-ha-ness” about the US government being exposed as a hypocritical, not-as-smart-as-we-were-told bunch of ninny’s.

As we can see, the secrecy laws are being used to hide incompetence and double-dealing, not to protect the people of the United States.

BobMbx on November 28, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Did you read this?

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM

The Times claims it’s taken precautions to protect sources, including agreeing to some — but not all — redactions proposed by the White House:

This is troubling on a couple of levels too, The NYT gets to act as arbiter of who is going to be revealed as the good guys and who is going to be the bad guys. They also now are empowered to bargain for whatever they want as foreign policy going forward. By the act of omission or comission they can influence our enemies or allies.

fourdeucer on November 28, 2010 at 3:50 PM

Imagine, for a moment, if in this country, we had a “Free and Independent Press”, that would hold our politicians accountable and “in check” so some of this crap wouldn’t happen in the first place…

… Oh, wiat!

Seven Percent Solution on November 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Seven Percent Solution on November 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM

+1

cmsinaz on November 28, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Wow, those “strongly worded letters” really seem to be effective…

yubley on November 28, 2010 at 3:58 PM

“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.”

Really? I think the only reason that Obama has left the course of the war in the hands of Bush era people (military) is because he doesn’t know what else to do since what he would like to do would be political suicide. Are they going to publish any Bush era communications so that we can compare and contrast?

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Who inside our state department or communications agencies GAVE these to Wikileaks in the first place? THAT is where we need to focus.

crosspatch on November 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Greg Jarrett & Harris Faulkner just came on to discuss the leaks.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Maybe it would be best to put everything out and let the chips fall as they may rather than the NYT having such a big bargaining chip to manipulate our government.

fourdeucer on November 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I did. I am sure both Mr. Danforth and Senator Lugar are lovely men but they seem to be more of the same. I think there is going to be a whole different definition of “maverick” with the upcoming Congress.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I agree. The stuff this nutjob releases is humorous in the sense of Obama incompetence……….if it is that.
How on earth is this little turd getting the info. Some gay guy somewhere with low level clearance just doesn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

ORconservative on November 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Part of the establishment we learned about in part 3 of Britt’s special.

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM

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.

But remember, folks, it was bad, bad, BAD for Bush to label them an “Axis of Evil”.

Vyce on November 28, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Would I be mistaken to assume either the Chinese, Russians, or somebody out there less “prudish” than us will blow a dart in this clowns neck sometime soon?

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Vyce on November 28, 2010 at 4:06 PM

I guess it would have okay if W had called them that in a confidential memo instead of right out loud for everyone to hear.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Just more of our betters knowing what’s good for us.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:13 PM

Has anyone checked to see if this assclown Assange is connected in any way, shape, or form with George Soros? Because, like Soros, it seems this Assange goof is trying to cause chaos any way he can.

pilamaye on November 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

I would think that Russia and China are eating this up with a spoon.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

Has anyone checked to see if this assclown Assange is connected in any way, shape, or form with George Soros? Because, like Soros, it seems this Assange goof is trying to cause chaos any way he can.

pilamaye on November 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

No doubt he get money from Soros.

the_nile on November 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Has anyone checked to see if this assclown Assange is connected in any way, shape, or form with George Soros? Because, like Soros, it seems this Assange goof is trying to cause chaos any way he can.

pilamaye on November 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM
No doubt he get money from Soros.

the_nile on November 28, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Obama has 9 whole days to sweat this one out. Will it come out? Now? or Later? Soros pulling the Alynski on Obama… “worrying about the thing is worse than the thing itself”… broken face while ‘playing basketball’, Soros coming out and saying if Obama won’t do the job for him, he’ll find someone who can…

Links & Puzzles.

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 4:20 PM

I don’t hate The Won enough that I want our country to look like incompetent a$$es. Can’t he just make everyone eat a salad?

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Would I be mistaken to assume either the Chinese, Russians, or somebody out there less “prudish” than us will blow a dart in this clowns neck sometime soon?

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

Then he would be an instant martyr for the Left. Remember, they also worshiped Phillip Agee, who outed hundreds of CIA agents.

To the Left, outing CIA agents is good, unless they are cute blonde Democrat CIA desk jockeys who hate Chimpy Bush.

Del Dolemonte on November 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Can’t he just make everyone eat a salad?

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Salad, no. Franks and beans and turdburgers? Yes he can!

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM

I seem to recall a few days ago on Glenn’s radio or Fox show, can’t remember which, that soros is all bent out of shape about how bho is doing and wants someone who will do soros bidding. Things are not happening fast enough, if I recall, for soros. If that means getting rid of bho so be it. soros is one nasty nasty dude and hold enormous strings on our Republic!
L

letget on November 28, 2010 at 4:25 PM

This is the part where you think, gee, it sure would have been nice to have a president with lots of diplomatic experience to deal with the aftermath of this bombshell. Alas…

scalleywag on November 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM
I would think that Russia and China are eating this up with a spoon.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:14 PM

They might be now, but in 250k doc’s there has to be some embarassing or sensitive stuff about them too I would think, and knowing what a sense of humor they have, just figured this putz might be a candidate for an “accident”.

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM

This is the part where you think, gee, it sure would have been nice to have a president with lots of diplomatic experience to deal with the aftermath of this bombshell. Alas…

scalleywag on November 28, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I’m sure that they’re busy setting up a community for him to organize in Kenya right about now.

Who’s he got left? After this, Billary’s gone. Then who is left? Axlerod is gone. Rahm is gone. Summers is gone. Geithner’s next. The only three left are Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett and Oprah Winfrey. And George.

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM

if our allies get their panties in a twist about what we wrote about them, wonder how they would react if they knew what we really thought.

and alot of them are considering this as I type…

kelley in virginia on November 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM

wikileaks’ source is china

reliapundit on November 28, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Key West Reader on November 28, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Compliments of lorien1973. Very funny in annoyingly The Won way.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eat_the_salad/

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:31 PM

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Well I would be sad. /

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Excellent work on the post here, by the way. Trying to keep up with it all!

scalleywag on November 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM

…every encrypted message has a key “floating” beneath the surface. At some point however, that ‘key’ must repeat – even if the repetition cycle is millions of characters in length.
alwyr on November 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

My understanding is that the only way the private key can show up in the encrypted text is through pure coincidence, not as a necessary product of encryption; and that even if it does show up, there is no way to determine that it is, in fact, the private key. And, without the private key, the encrypted text is worthless.

___________________

Gregg: I’ll try to answer your question in as understandable fashion as possible.

An encryption ‘key,’ whether developed by the NSA or a private corporation does not “show up by accident”. It shows up due to frequency analysis. The whole basis for encryption is to disguise commonly known frequency occurrences in any language. So, in order to disguise what’s being written, an enciphering scheme might postulate: If I want use the letter ‘a’, I will use the letter ‘s’ instead; if I want to use the letter ‘b’, I will use the letter ‘m’ instead – and so on for each letter of the alphabet. Unfortunately, this type of encipherment can be broken with abysmal ease because the ‘value’ of each letter remains constant.

Before the advent of the computer, there were indeed ways to change the ‘values’ of letters each time they were introduced into the encrypted message. For example, the first time ‘a’ is used it becomes ‘s’, the 2d time it’s used it becomes ‘m’; the 3rd time it becomes ‘h’, and so on. When being done by hand, this type of scheme is very labor intensive (and ultimately became easily solvable with sophisticated hand-written algorithms). The most famous encryption device of all time is the German “Enigma” machines of WWII. English (and German) have approximately 26 letters in their respective languages. The Enigmas had 3 separate rotors/disks which allowed the sender to type a message such that when the letter ‘a’ hit the first rotor it was then translated to ‘l’, and when it hit the 2d rotor the letter ’l’ was translated to ‘t’ and when it hit the 3rd rotor it was translated to ‘h’.

At first glance, this would appear to be unbreakable since the ‘key’ involved is factorial 78 (i.e. factorial 3 X 26) a gigantic number. However, no matter how large the number, at some point if the 3 rotors are not changed, IT WILL REPEAT. Mathematically, it has to. Thus the Germans would change the settings of the 3 Enigma rotors at least daily so that typing the letter ‘a’ no longer resulted in ‘h’ as it had the day before. During WWII, the Brits developed the first “computer” (known as the Bomb) to electronically duplicate the Enigma’s rotor placements, and thus cracked the ‘unbreakable’ code.

However, the fact remains there has to be a ‘key’ which instructs the receiver when and how the value of ‘a’ is to be translated to ‘m’ or to ‘h’ or whatever. If you keep the same ‘values’ too long, your cipher will be broken. That’s alll there is to it. The trick in “disguising” this instructional ‘key’ is to make it so long (i.e. non-repetitive) that a decryptor cannot physically use frequency analysis to solve the problem.

alwyr on November 28, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Somebody needs their assange handed to them.

And Assange needs his in a sling.

AKA noose.

Freelance anarchist spies cannot be tolerated.

profitsbeard on November 28, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:31 PM

¡¡ןoן

OmahaConservative on November 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM

Other cables reveal King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia repeatedly urging the U.S. to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities

And that’s because of the powerful influence of the Israeli lobby in Saudi Arabia, right?

/s

Emperor Norton on November 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Don’t care what the damn things say — am sad that the contents are even being reported.

Simply wondering why treason is no longer punishable by death!

LifeTrek on November 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Simply wondering why treason is no longer punishable by death!

LifeTrek on November 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Ovid

sharrukin on November 28, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Wikileaks can easily obtain and distribute even the most sensitive secret documents, yet none of us clowns on the Right can find out so much as Dear Leader’s driving record or whatever while he was at Columbia…

Knott Buyinit on November 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM

Don’t care what the damn things say — am sad that the contents are even being reported.

Simply wondering why treason is no longer punishable by death!

LifeTrek on November 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

A non American committing treason against America?

Yeah. Good luck with that.

NoStoppingUs on November 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM

NoStoppingUs on November 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM

I believe Life Trek is speaking of the provider of the information to Assange and I agree completely.

Cindy Munford on November 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM

Wikileaks can easily obtain and distribute even the most sensitive secret documents, yet none of us clowns on the Right can find out so much as Dear Leader’s driving record or whatever while he was at Columbia…

Knott Buyinit on November 28, 2010 at 4:53 PM

That is mind boggling, we can’t even get a frickin college grade transcript leaked.

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 4:59 PM

A non American committing treason against America?

Yeah. Good luck with that.

NoStoppingUs on November 28, 2010 at 4:54 PM

Assange is just part of the operation, the face if you will. It wasn’t a non-American who leaked these documents. And I’m sure there are plenty of Americans assisting Wikileaks.

amerpundit on November 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Treason is no longer a big deal because of one thing:
The Democrats.

Tim Zank on November 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5