The latest WikiLeaks trove raises once more the following two issues — the circumstances of the release of classified documents and their contents. We won’t know the full extent of the diplomatic archives for days, but so far the particulars seem as embarrassing as they are underwhelming.
We are told that the Obama administration by hook or crook wanted to close Guantanamo, that occasionally U.S. diplomats spy, that Pakistan is unstable, that Saudi Arabia is duplicitous in wanting America to bell the Iranian nuclear cat while their elites subsidize al-Qaeda, that we are planning for the eventuality of North Korea’s fall, that China conspires against Google, that Libya’s Gaddafi had a hot blonde “nurse” with him, that the U.S. military was critical of the Brits, that the Royal Family is sometimes naughty, and all number of other things we would expect diplomatic missions to hear, gossip, editorialize, and intrigue about — and which usually find their way into the mainstream press sooner or later.
The danger of releasing these confidential diplomatic cables, then, is probably not their content per se but the destruction of the trust and reputations of many American diplomats who on future occasions, in far more critical contexts, will lament the loss of their access, friendships and credibility.
Second, the how, why, and when of the leak of over 250,000 diplomatic communications raises fundamental, worrisome, and even ironic issues. For instance, how in the world does one Pfc. Bradley Manning, the alleged twentysomething Army leaker, become an “intelligence analyst” (e.g., how long does one have to be in the army, what sort of education is requisite, and what prior skills must be demonstrable) with access to the private correspondence of the top echelon of the American diplomatic corps? That the young private Manning was even near a computer with such confidential material is insane.
Under Bush, press discussion of leaks focused on their embarrassing contents (after all, it was supposedly a higher calling that made brave whistle-blowers release confidential communications emanating from the Bush-Cheney right-wing nexus). In contrast, the press now seems more interested in responses of “How dare they” to the WikiLeaks methodology — as in, how could one be allowed to break laws and leak things from the Obamian State Department, if doing so might harm liberal diplomats, human-rights activists, etc., and embarrass a progressive government?
So, should we laugh or cry that State Department legal eagle Harold Koh is now using the powers of his new office (quite rightly) to remind leakers of the harm that they do to the operations of the U.S. government? The Bush-era author of “Can the President Be Torturer in Chief?” is now writing briefs explaining why the Obama administration’s use of judge/jury/executioner Predator drones against suspected terrorists (and anyone who goes up in smoke in their vicinity) is sanctioned by U.S. law. (I’d prefer to be waterboarded at Guantanamo by live questioning inquisitors than blown up by a no-questions-asked robot in Waziristan.)
Finally, Julian Assange is worse than a fraud, he is an abject hypocrite. Unilaterally he establishes supposed moral guidelines that determine the nature of his disclosures, but provides no proof that the enemies of, say, exposed Afghan and Iraqi civilian informants will not seek deadly retribution. And, of course, Assange would not wish to see published the private e-mail, telephone transcripts, and internal discussions of the WikiLeaks board, though these would give us the neccessary “context” to form opinions about the motivations and methodology of such leaks. Much less would Assange like someone to leak the complete confidential judicial proceedings against him by the Swedish government, which has now issued a warrant for his arrest on sexual coercion and molestation charges. In short, once Assange destroys the protocols of confidentiality, there is no such refuge for anyone — himself especially.
And why should Assange limit himself largely to Europe and the United States? As he jets about the secure Western world disclosing to free presses the secrets of Western military and diplomatic services, he might ponder whether he would like to move on to a new career working with Iranian, Russian, Chinese, Syrian, and Hezbollah dissidents who could help him expose the far more lethal and dangerous covert activities of their authoritarian governments.
Victor more needs to be told about who Wikileak is. How are they funded? Sponsors...who are they? How can I as a private citizen who is outraged at hit back at Wikileak and anybody associated with them. Who is giving them the material? They should be facing the death sentence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI remain amazed that among all of the articles mentioning Bradley Manning, NONE discuss the documented fact that he was a disgruntled homosexual, angry about the DADT policy.
Could it be that both sides (pro-anti DADT) are afraid of what this could do to their agenda were it common knowledge about why Manning leaked the information?
I remember reading about this right after he was caught, then NOTHING. Frankly, I would not be surprised if this post is removed, in these PC times.....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohnG -- I recall reading the exact same thing and wondering the same while reading this article. Manning joined the Army out of protest and immediately set about running afoul of the system. Was he given too much latitude? Is he Major Nasan in taffeta?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDisgruntled about DADT? I'm honestly not sure why that would even add/detract anything from the discussion. What does DADT have to do with leaking state secrets?
P.S. You're on national review, not the NYT. Nobody here gives a rat's behind about PC.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA particular horror of our age is the power of a single "lone wolf" to bring down planes, buildings, and international relations. Motive does not matter. The lone wolf might be a jihadist, disgruntled "ist", or even just plain insane.
I use the word "horror" because the lone wolf is difficult to find or even guard against. Society itself is deeply divided about how to treat them once they have accomplished their purpose--another horror. Finally, compounded horror: where is the good, decent, Superman version of the lone wolf? Only in movies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe that these revelations will do more good than harm. So far, aside from the gossip and speculation, the real news is that the bad actors of the world remain prodigiously active.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJohn G, the point you make about Pvt. Manning's "true lifestyle" being covered-up by the MSM (and govt. officials) is an excellent one, and also factual. But i'm also amazed that people would think he alone could have done this. Obviously, there are more people involved. In fact, maybe enough to create a very serious security problem for this country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: JohnG comment on the news blackout over Private Manning's homosexuality.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt certainly doesn't help either the pro or anti-DADT case. A traitor who is willing to put untold numbers of innocent lives at risk in an adolescent, self absorbed, hissy fit over not being able to make a pass at the hottie in the cubicle across the aisle doesn't fit the heroic whistle blower narrative of the left, nor does it say much about the judgment of the chain of command that put the little twerp in a position to do so in the first place.
"(e.g., how long does one have to be in the army, what sort of education is requisite, and what prior skills must be demonstrable)"
Not MI myself, but I investigated it pretty closely when I considered changing MOS. They prefer brand new recruits, require high school education with fairly high scores on the ASVAB, and there aren't any particular skills that really translate to what an analyst does. A lot of Army jobs are like that... what do you look for in a parachute rigger? "Likes playing with string?"
Like any soldier, you'd do basic combat training, probably at Jackson, and then your advanced individual training would be at Fort Huachuca in AZ. Probably about a year of training, overall. The actual work they do is incredibly tedious, which is part of the reason I never made the switch. If you're an imagery analyst, for instance, you're going to spend a lot of time poring over pictures and compiling reports... really doesn't take a college degree for that stuff.
You have to have a top secret clearance. A security clearance doesn't really try to tell whether or not you're a good person, rather, it's trying to determine whether you have either a. allegiances to a foreign entity or b. possible "levers" an adversary could use to control you, financial, sexual, etc. They also try to figure out if you're lying, again, not because they need honest people but because if you've got something to hide, someone can use that to blackmail you.
"NONE discuss the documented fact that he was a disgruntled homosexual, angry about the DADT policy."
Here's the thing: if he was really a disgruntled soldier who snatched the documents, and just delivered them to Wikileaks, that would be a pretty unique event. It's probably easier to count the people who *aren't* disgruntled in the Army, and the pattern is usually revenge sought after a particular person. Similarly, lots of people have ideological differences with the Army and opportunity, but they don't do stuff like this.
So it's likely that someone from Wikileaks was working this guy, and that's a long, slow process that leaves a trail of evidence. Most likely, an alphabet soup of agencies are working through that to build a case against them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAside: the Predator drones are far from "robots" - there's a crew operating and controlling every one of them. Far from launching "no questions asked" attacks, the crew is required to understand the situation as there's a lot of pressure by leadership for them to make the "right" choice.
Point is made though: having water poured over one's head pales in comparison to death by missile.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just cannot fathom how a policy of letting 22 year old privates have access to the government's secrets is possible. This seems the more germane thing to be developed than Mr. Manning's motives-homosexual or otherwise. Hanson is correct that it is just insane to entrust these secrets to a nobody with no need to them and no demonstrated history of loyalty.
I want to know who was responsible for this policy, when it was implemented, who opposed it, and then who is going to get their worthless behinds out of the government and any sensitive position. That this has not already been let out as a field of discussion tells me that it is someone whom the press wishes to protect. All the more reason for this to be disclosed. How did this happen? ..... and who is responsible or to blame? The one who promoted this policy may well have seen this (Wikileaks type disclosures) as the likely outcome and in that sense is the one who really should be punished, because he or she intended this result.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: Dr. Hanson's quote expressing his consternation about Pfc. Manning having access to classified info which I've noted below:
"how in the world does one Pfc. Bradley Manning, the alleged twentysomething Army leaker, become an “intelligence analyst” (e.g., how long does one have to be in the army, what sort of education is requisite, and what prior skills must be demonstrable) with access to the private correspondence of the top echelon of the American diplomatic corps? That the young private Manning was even near a computer with such confidential material is insane."
I don't expect civilians think much about how many young low ranking people in the U.S. military have access to classified information. But I would have thought a prestigious classical military historian like Dr. Hanson would have had some clue. Since he doesn't, here's the scoop. The short answer is thousands and thousands. My own military career is a good example. I joined the U.S. Air Force in 1977 as an enlisted man. After about 5 months of basic training and tech school I arrived at my first duty station, a Strategic Air Command bomb wing in Sacramento, California. I was about 22 years old with the rank of Airman Basic, the lowest enlisted paygrade of E-1 and no stripes on my shoulder. I already had a Top Secret clearance, the highest clearance available. I was assigned to work behind a walk-in vault in the target intelligence section. Did I have to undergo any more training, experience or background investigations when I arrived at my duty station. Nope? First day on the job I had complete access to all the Top Secret maps with all the targets in the Soviet Union assigned to the B-52 aircraft at my wing. The maps also showed the exact travel routes our bombers would take to get to their targets and so on. I could have filled a briefcase with all those target folders anytime I wanted and in 2 hours I could have been at the Soviet consulate in San Francisco picking up some extra money for beer and broads, always the first priority for most young male servicemen. Now flash forward 33 years to Pfc. Manning and his WikiLeaks caper. Doesn't sound like things have changed much, huh? The military relies on the loyalty and integrity of its people to preserve its secrets and that system works surprisingly well. However, there will always bee a few degenerate creeps like Pfc. Manning and that hasn't changed much either.
Lewis Forro
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVirginia Beach, VA
JohnG, your post will not be removed from NRO - even if they HAVE started requiring higher-level maths to post a comment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDr. Hanson, while I vigorously and respectfully dispute the points in your immigration post from last week, this post on WikiLeaks is very compelling.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Lewis Forro
Anxious to indulge your snottiness about Hanson being clueless, you are addressing a question he did not even raise. He did not ask how many have access to confidential information, rather, he rhetorically raised questions about what criteria is exercised to make determinations as to who has access and how that criteria is created and who creates it. Got it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm all for ridiculing the confused morality, but I disagree on underwhelming.
The significance:
1. the profound incompetence of the US government in controlling its records
2. the petty frivolous gossip that seems to fill the days of the diplomatic corps
3. the heavy handed pressure on small countries for petty projects (the Guantanamo thugs)
4. the decision that Britain, Canada, etc are now America's enemies and we must gather information to blackmail their diplomats, politicians, etc. rather than leveraging common interests
- Mike (from Canada)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Baker,
Are you Dr. Hanson's cousin or press agent?
Dr. Hanson seemed puzzled and surprised that Pfc. Manning had access to classified info by calling it "insane." He seems to think there is something wrong when an "intelligence analyst" is young, and should demonstrate a lot of skill and education before being entrusted with such a vital job. Maybe there is something wrong with that picture, but the U.S. military has always been like that. I like Dr. Hanson and resect him, but he like most civilians obviously, has a big blind spot on how the American military decides the criteria on who has access to classified information. As I proved in my earlier post below, the criteria is very loose and all encompassing indeed. 3 or 4 months of tech school that any B student in high school could pass and getting a security clearance. To get a clearance, all you need is the lack of a criminal record and no unexplained contacts with citizens of foreign nations. The result is a I stated: thousands of "20 somethings" (to use Hanson's term) with only a few months in the military right now have access to classified information. As noted, I was a 22 year old Airman Basic no-striper with a Top Secret clearance working in a SAC intelligence unit with Top Secret maps and plans to nuke the Russians. That hasn't changed since I enlisted 33 years ago. So my points are entirely accurate and valid regarding Dr. Hanson's query about how Pfc. Manning was able to steal secrets.
Lewis Forro
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseVirginia Beach, VA
Why don't we get Wikileaks to do something more useful for the country? With their skill at uncovering anything, let them try to get copies of Obama's academic records, birth certificate and how he apparently got waivers from having to take SAT tests. I suspect anyone who gets access to such data will be banished from his computer access before the NY zTimes learns that the information was stolen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI was a Naval Officer in the late Sixties with a top secret clearance, and part of my duties was to retrieve what were then called the registered pubs and bring them to the Executive Officers office on base for perusal in the morning. Each squadron had access to these materials and afterwards they were returned. However, these papers were what was called compartmentalized intel and they only dealt with items of interest in our area of operations and with things that had some relevence to what were were doing. Something has changed if access to what looks like everything under the sun is now available at the behest of just any intel clerk who sits down at a computer and downloads any item of interest to him from any and all Depts. in the government. Hopefully, we can shutter this kind of transparency. Keith
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Lewis Forro
Again you confuse a question asking how a situation exists with how many are involved. In his article, he does not ask how many are having improper access. He asks why does it exist at all, a question you do not really answer but take the liberty of making patronizing remarks for his not knowing the answer to the question you would have preferred that he address.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse