United States diplomatic cables leak

United States diplomatic cables leak - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikinews has news on this topic
[show]

* Wikileaks to release thousands of secret documents; 'international embarrassment' likely, 27 November 2010
* Files will risk 'countless' lives, Obama administration warns Wikileaks, 28 November 2010
* Wikileaks website attacked; millions of files to be released tonight, 28 November 2010
* Wikileaks cable disclosure shows Arab fears of Iranian ambitions, 30 November 2010
* Latest 'CableGate' disclosures hint at US diplomatic tactics in Spain and beyond, 1 December 2010
* Leaked cables cause Australian concern, 10 December 2010

Page move-protected
This article is about the release of leaked U.S. diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks. For the contents of those cables, see Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak.

The United States diplomatic cables leak (also known as Cablegate)[1] began on 28 November 2010 when WikiLeaks — an international new media non-profit organisation that publishes submissions of private, secret and classified media from anonymous news sources and news leaks — started to publish classified documents of detailed correspondence between the U.S. State Department and its diplomatic missions around the world, releasing further documents every day. Five major newspapers around the world have been publishing articles based on the leaks, by agreement with Wikileaks. The publication of the U.S. embassy cables is the third in a series of U.S. classified document "mega-leaks" distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following the Afghan War documents leak in July, and the Iraq War documents leak in October. The contents of the cables describe international affairs from 300 embassies dated from 1966–2010, containing diplomatic analysis of world leaders, an assessment of host countries, and a discussion about international and domestic issues.

The first 220[2] of the 251,287 documents were published on 28 November, with simultaneous press coverage from El País (Spain), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), The Guardian (United Kingdom), and The New York Times (United States).[3][4] Over 130,000 of the documents are unclassified, some 100,000 are labeled "confidential", about 15,000 documents have the higher classification "secret", and none are classified as "top secret" on the classification scale.[3][5] As of 16 December 2010, 1,532 individual cables had been released.[6] WikiLeaks plans to release all the cables in phases over several months at a pace of about 80 cables per day.[4][7]

Reactions to the leak varied widely. Some western governments expressed strong disapproval and condemnation, and criticized WikiLeaks for potentially jeopardizing international relations and global security. The leak also generated intense interest from the public, journalists, and media analysts. WikiLeaks received support from some commentators who questioned the necessity of government secrecy in a democracy that serves the interests of its people and depends on an informed electorate. Some political leaders referred to Julian Assange, editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, as a criminal, but also blamed the U.S. Department of Defense for security lapses that led to the leak. Supporters of Assange have referred to him as a heroic defender of free speech and freedom of the press.[8][9][10][11][12] White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that an "open and transparent government is something that the President believes is truly important. But the stealing of classified information and its dissemination is a crime".[13]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Background
* 2 Release
o 2.1 Contents
o 2.2 Print media coverage
* 3 Information warfare
o 3.1 Denial-of-service attack
o 3.2 Attack on hosting, finances, and accessibility
o 3.3 Anonymous and Operation Payback
o 3.4 Forged cables from Pakistan
* 4 Reactions
* 5 See also
* 6 References
* 7 External links

[edit] Background

In June 2010 the magazine Wired reported that the U.S. State Department and embassy personnel were concerned that Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army soldier who had been charged with the unauthorized download of classified material while he was stationed in Iraq, had leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks rejected the report as inaccurate: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".[14][15] Manning was suspected to have uploaded all of what he obtained to WikiLeaks, which chose to release the material in stages so as to have the greatest possible impact.[16]

According to The Guardian, all the diplomatic cables were marked "Sipdis", denoting "secret internet protocol distribution", which means they had been distributed via the closed U.S. SIPRNet, the U.S. Department of Defense’s classified version of the civilian internet.[17] Although more than three million U.S. government personnel and soldiers have access to this network,[18] "top secret" documents are not included in the system. Such a large quantity of secret information was available to a wide audience because, as The Guardian alleged, after the 11 September attacks an increased focus had been placed on sharing information since gaps in intra-governmental information sharing had been exposed.[17] More specifically the diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence communities would be able to do their jobs better with this easy access to analytic and operative information.[17] A spokesman said that in the previous weeks and months additional measures had been taken to improve the security of the system and prevent leaks.[17]

On 22 November, an announcement was made via WikiLeaks's Twitter feed that the next release would be "7× the size of the Iraq War Logs".[19][20] U.S. authorities and the media had speculated, at the time, that they could contain diplomatic cables.[21] Prior to the expected leak, the government of the United Kingdom (U.K.) sent a DA-Notice to U.K. newspapers, which requested advance notice from newspapers regarding the expected publication.[22] According to the Index on Censorship, "there is no obligation on [the] media to comply".[22] Under the terms of a DA-Notice, "[n]ewspaper editors would speak to [the] Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee prior to publication".[22] The Guardian was revealed to have been the source of the copy of the documents given to The New York Times in order to prevent the British government from obtaining any injunction against its publication.[23] The Pakistani newspaper Dawn stated that the U.S. newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post were expected to publish parts of the diplomatic cables on 28 November, including 94 Pakistan-related documents.[24]

On 26 November, Assange sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State, via his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, inviting them to "privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed".[25][26][27] Harold Koh, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, rejected the proposal, stating: "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials".[27] Assange responded in turn by writing back to the U.S. State Department that "you have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour".[28][29]

Ahead of the leak of the documents, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton contacted officials in Afghanistan, France, Germany, the People's Republic of China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom about the impending release, while other diplomats apparently spoke with the leaders in Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, India, Iraq, Israel, Italy,[30][31] New Zealand,[32] the Netherlands.[33][34][35] Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Sweden[36] and Turkey.
[edit] Release

The five newspapers that had obtained an advance copy of all leaked cables began releasing the cables on 28 November 2010, and Wikileaks made the cables selected by these newspapers and redacted by their journalists available on its website. "They are releasing the documents we selected," Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview.[37]

Wikileaks aims to release the cables in phases over several months due to their global scope and significance.[3] The first batch of leaks released comprised 220 cables.[3] Further cables were subsequently made available on the WikiLeaks website.[4] The full set of cables published so far can be browsed at cablesearch.org.

There has been some media confusion about the number of cables published. That number is still only a tiny fraction of the total of a quarter of a million.[38] A small table with counts follows.
Leaks release timetable[show]
Available↓ Deleted↓ Timestamp↓
220 0 23:16 GMT, 28 November
243 ≥ 0 13:48 GMT, 29 November
291 ≥ 4 0:23 GMT, 1 December
486 ≥ 2 17:00 GMT, 1 December
...
1,766 ≥ 12 19:48 GMT, 18 December
1,788 ≥ 11 12:18 GMT, 19 December
1,818 ≥ 3 07:24 GMT, 20 December
1,824 ≥ 4 13:40 GMT, 20 December
1,862 ≥ 8 21:36 GMT, 21 December

The 'available' column gives the number of cables contained in the torrent file with the given timestamp. The 'deleted' column gives the number of cables that occurred in earlier releases but are absent in that release. Usually these cables come back later, sometimes redacted or unredacted. A few more cables have been published by various newspapers but not yet by Wikileaks. Sources:[39][40][41][42]
[edit] Contents
Contents of the announced leak (251,287 cables) Subject Documents
External political relations 145,451
Internal government affairs 122,896
Human rights 55,211
Economic conditions 49,044
Terrorists and terrorism 28,801
UN Security Council 6,532
Main article: Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

The contents of the U.S. diplomatic cables leak describe in detail events and incidents surrounding international affairs from 274 embassies dating from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.
[edit] Print media coverage

The Guardian released its coverage of the leaked cables in numerous articles, including an interactive database, starting on 28 November.[43] Der Spiegel also released its preliminary report, with extended coverage promised for the next day.[44] Its cover for 29 November was also leaked with the initial report.[45] The New York Times covered the story in a nine-part series spanning nine days, with the first story published simultaneously with the other outlets.[46] The New York Times was not originally intended to receive the leak, allegedly[47] due to its unflattering portrayal of the site's founder, but The Guardian decided to share coverage, citing earlier cooperation while covering the Afghan and Iraqi war logs. The Washington Post reported that it also requested permission to see the documents, but was rejected for undisclosed reasons.[47] El País released its report[48] saying there was an agreement between the newspapers for simultaneous publication of the "internationally relevant" documents, but that each newspaper was free to select and treat those documents that primarily relate to its own country.[49]

Australian-based Fairfax Media obtained access to the cables under a separate arrangement.[50] Fairfax newspapers began releasing their own stories based on the leaked cables on 7 December. Unlike other newspapers given access, Fairfax originally had not posted any of the original cables online, citing the need to maintain its competitive advantage over other Australian newspapers.[51] However, on 16 December Fairfax reversed its position, and began publishing the cables used in its stories.[52]

CNN was originally supposed to receive an advance copy of the documents as well, but did not after it refused to sign a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks.[53] The Wall Street Journal also refused advance access, apparently for similar reasons as CNN.[54]

Aftenposten, a Norwegian daily newspaper, reported on 17 December that it had received access to the full cable set of 251,287 documents.[55]
[edit] Information warfare
[edit] Denial-of-service attack

About an hour prior to the planned release of the initial documents, WikiLeaks announced it was experiencing a massive distributed denial-of-service attack,[56] but vowed to still release the cables and documents via pre-agreed prominent media outlets El País, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and The New York Times.[57]

According to Arbor Networks, an internet analyst group, the DDoS attack accounted for between two and four gigabits per second (Gbit/s) of additional traffic to the WikiLeaks host network, compared to an average traffic of between twelve and fifteen Gbit/s under ordinary conditions.[58] The attack was slightly more powerful than ordinary DDoS attacks, though well below the maximum of 60 to 100 Gbit/s of other major attacks during 2010.[58] The attack was claimed to have been carried out by a person by the name of "Jester", who describes himself as a "hacktivist". Jester took credit for the attack on Twitter, stating that WikiLeaks "threaten[ed] the lives of our troops and 'other assets.'"[58][59]

On 2 December 2010, EveryDNS, a domain name registrar, dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing denial-of-service attacks (DDoS) that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure",[60] but the site was still reachable at http://46.59.1.2[61] and http://213.251.145.96, as well as several other addresses.

John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote a tweet saying: "The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops."[62]
[edit] Attack on hosting, finances, and accessibility

Amazon.com removed WikiLeaks from its servers on 1 December 2010 at 19:30 GMT, and the latter website was unreachable until 20:17 GMT when the site had defaulted to its Swedish servers, hosted by Bahnhof. U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, among the members of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who had questioned Amazon in private communication on the company's hosting of WikiLeaks and the illegally obtained documents, commended Amazon for the action;[63] WikiLeaks, however, responded by stating on its official Twitter page that "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free—fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe",[64] and later that "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books".[65]

On 4 December, Paypal cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations.[66] On 6 December, the Swiss bank PostFinance announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange;[67] on the same day, MasterCard stopped payments to WikiLeaks,[68] with Visa following them on 7 December.[69]

Official efforts by the U.S. government to limit access to, conversation about, and general spread of the cables leaked by WikiLeaks were revealed by leading media organizations. A 4 December 2010 article by MSNBC,[70] reported that the Obama administration has warned federal government employees and students in educational institutions studying towards careers in public service that they must refrain from downloading or linking to any WikiLeaks documents. However, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denied ordering students, stating, "We do not control private networks. We have issued no authoritative instructions to people who are not employees of the Department of State." He said the warning was from an "overzealous employee."[71] According to a 3 December 2010 article in The Guardian,[72] access to WikiLeaks has been blocked for federal workers. The U.S. Library of Congress, the U.S. Commerce Department and other government agencies have confirmed that the ban is already in place.

A spokesman for Columbia University confirmed on 4 December that its Office of Career Services sent an e-mail warning students at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs to refrain from accessing WikiLeaks cables and discussing this subject on the grounds that "discourse about the documents would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information".[73] However, this was quickly retracted on the following day. SIPA Dean John Henry Coatsworth wrote that "Freedom of information and expression is a core value of our institution, [...] thus, SIPA’s position is that students have a right to discuss and debate any information in the public arena that they deem relevant to their studies or to their roles as global citizens, and to do so without fear of adverse consequences."[74]

The New York Times reported on 14 December[75] that the U.S. Air Force bars its personnel from access to news sites (such as those of The New York Times and The Guardian) that publish leaked cables.

On 18 December, the Bank of America stopped handling payments for WikiLeaks.[76]
[edit] Anonymous and Operation Payback
Main article: Operation Payback

In response to perceived federal, and actual corporate, censorship of the cable leaks, internet group Anonymous attacked several websites using DDoS. So far, the websites of the Swedish prosecutor, PostFinance, the Swiss post-office banking company, MasterCard and Visa have all been targeted.[77]
[edit] Forged cables from Pakistan

On 9 December 2010, major Pakistani newspapers (such as The News International, The Express Tribune and the Daily Jang) and television channels carried stories that claimed to detail U.S. diplomats' assessments of senior Indian generals as "vain, egotistical and genocidal", also saying "India's government is secretly allied with Hindu fundamentalists", and that "Indian spies are covertly supporting Islamist militants in Pakistan's tribal belt and Balochistan.".[78] The claims were credited to an Islamabad-based news service agency that has frequently run pro-Pakistan Army stories in the past.[78]

Later, The News International admitted the story "was dubious and may have been planted", and The Express Tribune offered "profuse" apologies to readers.[79] Urdu-language papers such as the Daily Jang, however, declined to retract the story.[79]
[edit] Reactions
Main article: Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak

Many governments said the leaks could damage diplomatic relationships between countries and put people at risk. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the leak as an attack not just on the U.S. but on all governments:

Let's be clear: This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests. It is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity. Now, I'm aware that some may mistakenly applaud those responsible, so I want to set the record straight. There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations.[80]

Clinton's credibility was questioned by several mainstream American and British periodicals, as some journalists, as well as a Bolivarian[who?] head-of-state, have called for Clinton to resign or asked whether she will resign, amid allegations that Clinton has broken international law or other laws by allegedly trying to steal credit card numbers, passwords, and biometric data from the Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon and other leaders, and as future cable leaks or the current ones may bring investigations against Clinton.[81][82][83][84][85]

Javier Moreno, editor-in-chief of El País, said that the release of the documents does not put lives at risk and that the attacks on such a release of information to the general public amount to the same reaction seen in other leaks, such as the Pentagon Papers in 1971. Moreno said that the only thing at risk is the career of officials and diplomats within the compromised governments.[86]

The publishing of a cable from the U.S. State Department sent in February 2009, titled the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, listed foreign installations and infrastructure considered critical to U.S. interests; before its release, WikiLeaks removed the names and locations. The list includes key facilities that if attacked could disrupt the global supply chain and global communications, as well as goods and services important to the U.S. and its economy.[87] U.S. State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said the disclosure of this list "gives a group like al-Qaeda a targeting list."[88] British prime minister David Cameron said the list was damaging to the national security of both his country and the U.S., "and elsewhere". WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said with reference to the cable: "This further undermines claims made by the US Government that its embassy officials do not play an intelligence-gathering role. In terms of security issues, while this cable details the strategic importance of assets across the world, it does not give any information as to their exact locations, security measures, vulnerabilities or any similar factors, though it does reveal the US asked its diplomats to report back on these matters."[89]

In the wake of the leak of classified materials, politicians called for action. U.S. Congressman Peter T. King proposed designating WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization,[90] and Assange became a target of repeated attacks and incitements to violence. According to Assange:

I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.[91]

Reporters Without Borders raised concerns over the extreme comments made by American authorities concerning WikiLeaks and its founder Assange. It issued a statement saying that "this is the first time we have seen an attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency. We are shocked to find countries such as France and the United States suddenly bringing their policies on freedom of expression into line with those of China."[92] The group also condemned the subsequent blocking and the massive distributed denial-of-service attack on the WikiLeaks website.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized the overclassification of information that should otherwise be available to the public for discussion. The ACLU called on President Obama to "recommit to the ideals of transparency he invoked at the beginning of his presidency. The American public should not have to depend on leaks to the news media and on whistleblowers to know what the government is up to."[93] Ben Wizner, Litigation Director of the ACLU National Security Project, issued a statement about the Khalid El-Masri cable leak revelations, calling for public accountability and the strengthening of the rule of law and democracy in the U.S.[94]

Henry Porter, writing in The Observer, 11 December, established a parallel with events in 1771. At that time British law prohibited reporting of U.K. Parliamentary debates and speeches because those in power argued that the information was too sensitive and would be disruptive if published. John Wilkes and others illegally published debates, with the eventual support of the London mob, shopkeepers and members of the gentry. Porter says that "From that moment, the freedom of the press was born ... and the kingdom did not fall."[95]

As of 8 December 2010, the Office of the Vice President of Bolivia had created a portal website (at http://WikiLeaks.vicepresidencia.gob.bo) for leaked cables related to Bolivia. The site acts as both a mirror for these cables as they are released, and a host of translations and quantitative analysis of the cables.[96][97]
[edit] See also

* Classified information in the United States
* New York Times Co. v. United States

[edit] References

1. ^ Young, Graham (18 December 2010). "Cablegate Gift Keeps on Giving". The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/wikileaks/cablegate-gift-keeps-on-giving/story-fn775xjq-1225972909371. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
2. ^ (registration required) "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy" The New York Times. 28 November 2010. Retrieved 15 December 2010.
3. ^ a b c d "The embassy cables will be released in stages over the next few months. The subject matter of these cables is of such importance, and the geographical spread so broad, that to do otherwise would not do this material justice". See: "Secret US Embassy Cables". WikiLeaks. 28 November 2010. Archived from the original on 28 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uaR3fktN. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
4. ^ a b c Danielle, Kris (25 November 2010). "1,796 Memos from US Embassy in Manila in WikiLeaks 'Cablegate'". ABS-CBN News. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/11/29/10/1796-memos-us-embassy-manila-wikileaks-cablegate. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
5. ^ (registration required) Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (28 November 2010). "Leaked Cables Offer Raw Look at U.S. Diplomacy". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html.
6. ^ "Secret US Embassy Cables". WikiLeaks. 8 December 2010. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uosm075G.
7. ^ Walsh, Declan (2 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Editor Calls on Clinton To Quit". The Sydney Morning Herald (via The Southland Times). Retrieved 11 December 2010.
8. ^ Sanburn, Josh (10 November 2010). "Julian Assange — Who Will Be Time's 2010 Person of the Year?". Time. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
9. ^ Carl Bernstein on "The Joy Behar Show" – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPbuGYwxQm8 Retrieved 7 December 2010.
10. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "In Defence of WikiLeaks". Blog on The Economist. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
11. ^ Jenkins, Simon (28 November 2010). "US Embassy Cables: The Job of the Media Is Not To Protect the Powerful from Embarrassment — It Is for Governments — Not Journalists — To Guard Public Secrets, and There Is No National Jeopardy in WikiLeaks' Revelations". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
12. ^ Naureckas, Jim (1 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Hasn't 'Leaked' Anything". Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
13. ^ Gibbs, Robert (29 November 2010). "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 11/29/2010". White House Office of the Press Secretary. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/29/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-11292010. "I think it is safe to say that the President was – it’s an understatement – not pleased with this information becoming public. As you saw during the presidential campaign and during his time in the White House, open and transparent government is something that the President believes is truly important. But the stealing of classified information and its dissemination is a crime." Secondary source coverage is extensive, i.e., Time, USA Today, etc.
14. ^ Zetter, Kim; Poulsen, Kevin (8 June 2010). "State Department Anxious About Possible Leak of Cables to Wikileaks". Wired. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/state-department-anxious/. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
15. ^ Staff writer (6 June 2010). "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect.". Wikileaks (via Twitter). Retrieved 4 December 2010.
16. ^ "Cable Viewer". wikileaks.dd19.de. http://wikileaks.dd19.de/static/html/faq.html. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
17. ^ a b c d Tisdall, Simon (29 November 2010). "Wikileaks Cables Reveal China 'Ready To Abandon North Korea' — Leaked Dispatches Show Beijing Is Frustrated with Military Actions of 'Spoiled Child' and Increasingly Favours Reunified Korea". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-cables-china-reunified-korea. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
18. ^ Borger, Julian; Leigh, David. (28 November 2010). "Siprnet: Where America Stores Its Secret Cables — Defence Department's Hidden Internet Is Meant To Be Secure, But Millions of Officials and Soldiers Have Access". The Guardian. Accessed 12 December 2010.
"The US general accounting office identified 3,067,000 people cleared to "secret" and above in a 1993 study."
19. ^ "WikiLeaks Twitter Status". Wikileaks (via Twitter). 22 November 2010. http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/6564225640042499. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
20. ^ Petrou, Andrea (22 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Promises Leak 'Seven Times Bigger than Iraq' — Coming Months Will See 'History Redefined'". TechEye. http://www.techeye.net/internet/wikileaks-promises-leak-seven-times-bigger-than-iraq. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
21. ^ Staff writer (23 November 2010). "Telegraph: WikiLeaks To Release Three Million Secret US Documents". Focus Information Agency. http://www.focus-fen.net/index.php?id=n235797. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
22. ^ a b c Butselaar, Emily (26 November 2010). "Wikileaks: UK Issues DA-Notice as US Briefs Allies on Fresh Leak". Index on Censorship. http://www.indexoncensorship.org/2010/11/us-uk-wikileaks-d-notice-leak/. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
23. ^ Calderone, Michael (28 November 2010). "The Guardian Gave State Dept. Cables to the NY Times" Yahoo! News. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
24. ^ Iqbal, Anwar (27 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Plans To Release 94 Papers about Pakistan". Dawn. Archived from the original on 26 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uXW29Chj. Retrieved 27 November 2010.
25. ^ "Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government". Documents.nytimes.com. http://documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov#text/p1. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
26. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "US Rejects Talks with WikiLeaks". Agence France-Presse (via The Sydney Morning Herald). Archived from the original on 28 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqzdckM. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
27. ^ a b Koh, Harold Hongju (27 November 2010). "Dear Ms. Robinson and Mr. Assange" (PDF). The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 28 November 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uZqSSqr6. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
28. ^ "Letters between Wikileaks and the U.S. Government". Documents.nytimes.com. http://documents.nytimes.com/letters-between-wikileaks-and-gov#document/p4. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
29. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "U.S. Tries To Suppress Evidence of Human Rights: Assange". Press Trust of India (via The Hindu). http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article921240.ece. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
30. ^ "Wikileaks Set To Release Top US Secrets". YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAfPn1Bmd5o. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
31. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "Bracing for WikiLeaks, US Warns 'Friend' India". The Indian Express. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Bracing-for-WikiLeaks--US-warns--friend--India/717152. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
32. ^ Trevett, Claire; Donnel, Hayden (29 November 2010). "PM: Wikileaks Release May Cause 'Embarrassment'". The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10690871. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
33. ^ Staff writer (26 November 2010). "Ook Nederland Gewaarschuwd Voor Wikileaks" (in Dutch language). Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
34. ^ Staff writer (26 November 2010). "VS Waarschuwen Ook Nederland Voor Wikileaks" (in Dutch language). De Pers. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
35. ^ Staff writer (26 November 2010). "VS Waarschuwt Nederland om Inhoud Wikileaks" (in Dutch language). De Volkskrant. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
36. ^ Harnden, Toby (28 November 2010). "WikiLeaks: Julian Assange Could Face 'Grave Consequences' — Julian Assange, the Founder of WikiLeaks, Has Been Rebuffed by the US Government after He Sought Information Regarding Individuals Who May Be 'at Significant Risk of Harm' Because of His Release of Classified Documents". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8166421/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-could-face-grave-consequences.html. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
37. ^ Staff writer (3 December 2010). "Respected Media Outlets Collaborate with WikiLeaks". Associated Press (via Google News). Retrieved 12 December 2010.
38. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (10 December 2010). "The Media's Authoritarianism and WikiLeaks". Salon.com. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
39. ^ WikiLeaks (30 November 2010). "Secret US Embassy Cables". http://wikileaks.dd19.de/cablegate.html. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
40. ^ "WikiLeaks Torrents". http://www.privetbank.com.ua/cablegate/index.html.
41. ^ "Cable Search BETA". Cablesearch.org. http://cablesearch.org/. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
42. ^ "FAQ « Cable Search BETA". Cablesearch.org. http://cablesearch.org/?page_id=99. Retrieved 2010-12-20.
43. ^ Staff writer (portal to database) (28 November 2010). "US Embassy Cables: Browse the Database". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-wikileaks. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
44. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "The US Diplomatic Leaks: A Superpower's View of the World". Der Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,731580,00.html. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
45. ^ (Image of 29 November 2010 Der Spiegel cover) (undated posting). Gawker (blog). Retrieved 29 November 2010.
46. ^ (registration required) Shane, Scott; Lehren, Andrew W. (28 November 2010). "Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&hp. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
47. ^ a b Farhi, Paul (29 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Spurned New York Times, but Guardian Leaked State Department Cables". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/29/AR2010112905421.html. Retrieved 30 November 2010.
48. ^ Jiménez, Vincente; Caño, Antonio (14 July 2010). "La Mayor Filtración de la Historia Deja al Descubierto los Secretos de la Política Exterior de EE UU" (in Spanish language). El País. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/mayor/filtracion/historia/deja/descubierto/secretos/politica/exterior/EE/UU/elpepuint/20101128elpepuint_25/Tes. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
49. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "Preguntas y Respuestas Sobre los Papeles del Departamento de Estado" (in Spanish language). El País. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Preguntas/respuestas/papeles/Departamento/Estado/elpepuint/20101128elpepuint_11/Tes. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
50. ^ Dorling, Philip (11 December 2010). "How I Met Julian Assange and Secured the American Embassy Cables". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
51. ^ Holmes, Jonathan (14 December 2010). "WikiLeaks, Journalists and That Elusive Public Interest". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 17 December 2010.
52. ^ Massola, James (16 December 2010). "Fairfax Publishes Diplomatic Cables in WikiLeaks Row". The Australian. Retrieved 17 December 2010.
53. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "U.S. Documents Obtained by WikiLeaks Posted Despite Site Problem". CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/wikileaks.attack/?hpt=T1. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
54. ^ Lindsay, James (29 November 2010). "Wikileaks Cables Expose World Leaders' Sensitive Diplomacy". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/11/29/DI2010112902197.html. Retrieved 3 December 2010.
55. ^ Staff writer (17 December 2010). "250.000 Nye Wikileaks-Dokumenter til Aftenposten — Aftenposten Har Fått Tilgang til 250.000 Nye Wikileaks-Dokumenter. Nyhetsredaktør Ole Erik Almlid Sier Avisen Kan Bruke Dokumentene uten Betingelser" (in Norwegian language). Aftenposten. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/wikileaks/article3953048.ece. Retrieved 21 December 2010.
56. ^ Staff writer (28 November 2010). "Wikileaks 'Hacked Ahead of Secret US Document Release'". BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11858637. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
57. ^ "Twitter / WikiLeaks: El Pais, Le Monde, Speigel". Wikileaks (via Twitter). http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/8924979961798657. Retrieved 28 November 2010.
58. ^ a b c Poulsen, Kevin (29 November 2010). "Cyber Attack Against WikiLeaks Was Weak". Wired. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/11/wikileaks-attack/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wired/index+(Wired:+Index+3+(Top+Stories+2)). Retrieved 29 November 2010.
59. ^ "Twitter / Jester: www.wikileaks.org – TANGO...". Twitter. 28 November 2010. http://twitter.com/th3j35t3r/status/8928679056900096. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
60. ^ Satter, Raphael G.; Svensson, Peter (3 December 2010) "WikiLeaks Fights To Stay Online Amid Attacks". Associated Press (via The Charlotte Observer). Retrieved 4 December 2010.
61. ^ Netcraft What's That Site Running Results
62. ^ Satter, Raphael G.; Svensson, Peterand (3 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Fights To Stay Online Amid Attacks". Associated Press (via The Washington Post). Retrieved 10 December 2010.
63. ^ Staff writer (1 December 2010). "Internet Company Had Hosted Wikileaks Website". Office of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. http://lieberman.senate.gov/index.cfm/news-events/news/2010/12/amazon-severs-ties-with-wikileaks. Retrieved 4 December 2010.
64. ^ Staff writer (1 December [2010]). "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe.". WikiLeaks (via Twitter). http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10058229002272768. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
65. ^ Staff writer (1 December [2010]). "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books.". WikiLeaks (via Twitter). http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10073870316863488. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
66. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). PayPal Turns Off Tap for WikiLeaks Donations — Online Payment Service Cuts Whistleblower Site From Money Flow, Making Donations More Difficult". Associated Press (via CBS News). Retrieved 10 December 2010.
67. ^ Staff writer (6 December 2010). "Wikileaks: Swiss Bank Shuts Julian Assange's Account". BBC News. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
68. ^ McCullagh, Declan (6 December 2010). "MasterCard Pulls Plug on WikiLeaks Payments". CBS News. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
69. ^ Staff writer (7 December 2010). "Wikileaks' Visa Payments Suspended". BBC News. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
70. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). "Fed Workers Told: Stay Away from Those Leaked Cables – Directive Notes the Content 'Remains Classified'; Columbia U. Also Warns Future Diplomats". MSNBC. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
71. ^ Staff writer (7 December 2010). "State Dept Denies Warning Students about WikiLeaks". Associated Press (via The Wall Street Journal). http://online.wsj.com/article/AP66175f65a14645a98bbe7b99c7a2dc7f.html. Retrieved 9 December 2010.
72. ^ MacAskill, Ewen (3 December 2010). "US Blocks Access to WikiLeaks for Federal Workers – Employees Unable To Call Up WikiLeaks on Government Computers as Material Is Still Formally Classified, Says US". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
73. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). "Fed Workers Told: Stay Away from Those Leaked Cables". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40512200/ns/us_news-wikileaks_in_security/. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
74. ^ Gustin, Sam (6 December 2010). "Columbia University Reverses Anti-WikiLeaks Guidance". Wired. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
75. ^ (registration required) [1]. The New York Times.
76. ^ Staff writer (18 December 2010). "Bank of America Stops Handling Wikileaks Payments". BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12028084. Retrieved 20 December 2010.
77. ^ Satter, Raphael G.; Lawless, Jill (10 December 2010). "Protests, Cyber-Skirmishes Rage over WikiLeaks". Associated Press (via Yahoo! News). http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/wikileaks;_ylt=AufzaAythuCl0aimsCU.8Hms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5dWlhMnAwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMjA4L3dpa2lsZWFrcwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzgEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2hhY2tlcnNzdHJpaw--. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
78. ^ a b Walsh, Declan (9 December 2010). "Pakistani Media Publish Fake WikiLeaks Cables Attacking India — Comments Alleged To Be from WikiLeaks US Embassy Cables Say Indian Generals Are Genocidal and New Delhi Backs Militants". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/09/pakistani-newspaper-fake-leaks-india. Retrieved 11 December 2010.
79. ^ a b Walsh, Declan (10 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Fake Cables — Pakistani Newspapers Admit They Were Hoaxed — Papers Apologise to Readers for Publishing Anti-Indian Comments Alleged To Have Been Said by US Officials". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-fake-cables-pakistan-apologies. Retrieved 11 December 2010.
80. ^ Staff writer (30 November 2010). "PBS Clinton Transcript". PBS. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec10/wikileaks1_11-29.html. Retrieved 6 December 2010.
81. ^ Corn, David (30 November 2010). "WikiLeaks Fallout: Should Hillary Clinton Resign?". Retrieved 21 December 2010.

Excerpt: "Jack Shafer at Slate makes a good case.... 'No matter what sort of noises Clinton makes about how the disclosures are "an attack on America" and "the international community,"...[t]here is no way that the new WikiLeaks leaks don't leave Hillary Clinton holding the smoking gun.' ...In many other nations, news such as this would indeed prompt resignations of high officials. The United States does not have this noble tradition...Perhaps the coming WikiLeaks leaks will cause additional difficulties for Clinton. But given the ADD [(attention deficit disorder)] of the national media, she probably can survive the current storm."

82. ^ Booth, Robert; Borger, Julian (28 November 2010). "US Diplomats Spied on UN Leadership — Diplomats Ordered To Gather Intelligence on Ban Ki-moon — Secret Directives Sent to More than 30 US Embassies — Call for DNA Data, Computer Passwords and Terrorist Links". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 December 2010.

"The UN has previously asserted that bugging the secretary general is illegal, citing the 1946 UN convention on privileges and immunities which states: 'The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable'.... The 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, which covers the UN, also states that 'the official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable'."

83. ^[unreliable source?]Harris, Paul X. (29 November [2010])."Hillary Clinton says #wikileaks undermines US diplomacy. No, what undermines it is trying to steal Ban Ki Moon's frequent flyer number". Paul X. Harris (via Twitter). Retrieved 21 December 2010.
84. ^ Cancel, Daniel; Orozco, Jose (29 November 2010). "Chavez Praises Wikileaks for 'Bravery' While Calling on Clinton to Resign". http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-30/chavez-praises-wikileaks-for-bravery-while-calling-on-clinton-to-resign.html. Retrieved 1 December 2010.
85. ^ News conference transcript (30 November 2010). "Acting Deputy Spokesperson for the Secretary General Farhan HAQ Holds Office of the Spokesman for the U.N. Secretary General Regular New Briefing". Political Transcript Wire (via FindArticles). Retrieved 21 December 2010.
86. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "Los Internautas Preguntan a Javier Moreno" (in Spanish language). El País. http://www.elpais.com/edigitales/entrevista.html?encuentro=7439. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
87. ^ Kendall, Bridget (6 December 2010). "Wikileaks: Site List Reveals US Sensitivities". BBC News. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uoxgrdN5. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
88. ^ Lister, Tim (7 December 2010). "WikiLeaks Lists Sites Key to U.S. Security". CNN. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uoyXENa1. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
89. ^ Haynes, Deborah; Mostrous, Alexi; Whittell, Giles (7 December 2010). "Wikileaks Lists 'Targets for Terror' Against US". The Australian. Archived from the original on 8 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5up0AdST7. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
90. ^ Cole, Rob (29 November 2010). "WikiLeaks 'Should Be A Terror Organisation'". Sky News. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/WikiLeaks-Republican-Peter-King-Says-WikiLeaks-Should-Be-Designated-A-Terrorist-Organisation/Article/201011415837684?lpos=World_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15837684_WikiLeaks%3A_Republican_Peter_King_Says_WikiLeaks_Should_Be_Designated_A_Terrorist_Organisation. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
91. ^ Assange, Julian (8 December 2010). "Don't Shoot Messenger for Revealing Uncomfortable Truths". The Australian. Archived from the original on 7 December 2010. http://www.webcitation.org/5uop1ll2L.
92. ^ Staff writer (4 December 2010). "Wikileaks Hounded?". Reporters Without Borders. http://en.rsf.org/wikileaks-hounded-04-12-2010,38958.html. Retrieved 5 December 2010.
93. ^ Staff writer (29 November 2010). "Wikileaks – News and Background". American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security/wikileaks-news-and-background. Retrieved 2 December 2010.
94. ^ Hasan, Mehdi (2 December 2010). "Does WikiLeaks Prove That the Yanks Are "a Force for Good"?". New Statesman. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/mehdi-hasan/2010/12/david-aaronovitch-united-iraq. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
See also: Staff writer (29 November 2010). "U.S. Pressured Germany Not To Prosecute CIA Officers For Torture And Rendition". American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-pressured-germany-not-prosecute-cia-officers-torture-and-rendition. Retrieved 7 December 2010.
95. ^ Porter, Henry (11 December 2010). "WikiLeaks May Make the Powerful Howl, But We Are Learning the Truth — WikiLeaks Has Offered Us Glimpses of How the World Works. And in Most Cases Nothing But Good Can Come of It". The Observer. Retrieved 13 December 2010.
96. ^ Staff writer (8 December 2010). "Vicepresidente: Portal WikiLeaks Bolivia Muestra Decadencia de Espionaje Estadounidense" (in Spanish language). Los Tiempos. http://www.lostiempos.com/diario/actualidad/politica/20101208/vicepresidente-portal-wikileaks-bolivia-muestra-decadencia-de-espionaje_102892_200484.html. Retrieved 10 December 2010.
97. ^ Staff writer (9 December 2010). "Bolivia Hosts WikiLeaks 'Mirror'". Associated Press (via Google News). http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4aNo1MoKfNGrFW57aOq2uJhwd1Q?docId=a42fc6411d8c48c996ae757be953bdc6. Retrieved 10 December 2010.

[edit] External links
Look up Cablegate in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Internet portal
Government of the United States portal

* Secret US Embassy Cables website by WikiLeaks
* The US embassy cables by The Guardian
* State's Secrets by The New York Times
* WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables by Der Spiegel
* Dedicated News Website
* The Arrest of Julian Assange and the U.S. "War on WikiLeaks" – video report by Democracy Now!
* Dutch Wikileaks Mirror by WikiLeaks
* All Cables on Google Fusion Tables
* "Wikileaked — Inside the State Department's Secret Cables". A journal run by Foreign Policy devoted to contents of Wikileaks's U.S. diplomatic cables release (retrieved 10 December 2010)
* "Support organization of Wikileaks and Julian Assange"