wikileaks have no top secret material

If you look at the site, they do not claim to have any documents of Top Secret or Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) classification. Everything listed below as part of ‘Cablegate’ would have been on SIPRNET. TS/SCI material would have been on JWICS only. This reinforces my hunch that Manning did not, as Wired magazine claimed, have access to JWICS. (See my post here.)

Key figures:
The full set consists of 251,287 documents: 15,652 secret; 101,748 confidential; 133,887 unclassified.

Browse by classification


  1. Helvena
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    I don’t get it. If they don’t have any top secret information, what’s the big brouhaha about? How is Wikileaks a blow for the little people? It’s just a tempest in a teapot and a way to smear countries not toeing the israeli line.

  2. niqnaq
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 3:54 pm | Permalink

    Won’t ordinary secrets do?

  3. helvena
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

    OK that’s a point. I’ll go back and think some more.

  4. niqnaq
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

    There should be more ordinary secrets from the US embassy in Tel Aviv. This is what there is:
    It’s almost all about Israel’s view of its supposed ‘threats’: Syria and Iran. The only one that’s really about Israel is “Israel: A Promised Land For Organised Crime?” and that is nonnclassified, not even confidential. When you look at the devastating gossip and backchat about local pols that comes in from the other embassies, it’s fishy, I agree. There is one item from the Jerusalem Consulate, also nonclassified:

  5. niqnaq
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

    I just did a Google News search for Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and although he has spoken to a number of news sources since Dec 6, when the Lia Abramovitch article appeared, he has neither repeated nor denied making the allegation about Assange meeting Israeli officials in Switzerland and agreeing to suppress Israeli-related material. No one has asked him about it, either. That in itself is odd. If he never made this allegation, and Abramovitch made it up, I would have expected him to deny having made it, and if he did make the allegation, I would have expected him to repeat it.

  6. lobro
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    it sounds like he did in fact make the allegation but has been told to shut up or else.

    it in fact strengthens the credibility of the story, rather than diluting it.

  7. niqnaq
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    Well, sooner or later someone, possibly from the Guardian, is going to ring him up and say “Mr Domscheit-Berg, did you make this allegation?” And if that doesn’t happen, then the next time he appears at a public press conference, someone from the audience will ask him about it. It’s out there now. It won’t evaporate. If he were simply to deny ever having made the allegation, then the story would probably die, because no one knows who the hell Leah Abramovitch is.

  8. lobro
    Posted December 18, 2010 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

    maybe he invented leah abramovitch as a pen name … that way he can accuse “her” of lying if things get too hot.
    all in the name of “remarkable transparency”, so characteristic of that society, another exemplar being rita katz.

  9. niqnaq
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 6:05 am | Permalink

    Well, as to that last theory: If the allegation is so dangerous that the Israelis got onto Domscheit-Berg and said, if you repeat that, you’re a dead man (which is quite possible), then it is a lot too dangerous for him to use just as a coat-trailer for his book (due out in mid Jan). And he would have known this before writing the article in the first place; whatever he is, he is not naive.

    Anyway, I really don’t think ‘SyriaTruth’ would have printed it for any author unknown to them. It’s possible that ‘Lia Abramovitch’ is a pseudonym for one of their regular writers, who just manufactured the story out of whole cloth (though if so, it is unusually specific in regard to Assange’s meeting in Switzerland). But then, I feel he ought to have taken the trouble to deny it by now.

  10. niqnaq
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 7:32 am | Permalink

    Another option for Domscheit-Berg — and WikiLeaks themselves — would be to confirm the story, but normalise it, by saying, “Assange, you recall, offered to meet with US representatives before publication of the cables started, in order to work out ways of eliminating any risk that US operatives or informants would be exposed to any personal danger. The US refused this invitation, but certain other governments, including that of Israel, took it up.” We would then want to say, “Really? How many governments did Assange actually reach secret agreements with? How dangerous are these leaks, if they have been secretly cleared with various governments?”

  11. Helvena
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    What would it say about Assange’s character and so his reliability if he’s cutting deals like that?

  12. niqnaq
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Um… I don’t really know. He wanted to be seen as being prepared to bend over backwards to put US fears that agents or informers would be named and endangered to rest. It’s an extension of the same logic, but a little harder to justify, since it is only US documents that WikiLeaks has gotten hold of — not Israeli documents, or those of any other country but the US.

  13. helvena
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    Assange wants to leak secrets but he doesn’t want anyone to really get hurt. Wow. Sorta like war on a video game. What is his point in all of this? Why doesn’t he hack (i’m sure he knows people that could do it) financial record of top dogs and leak those. That would slow down the war machine.

  14. niqnaq
    Posted December 19, 2010 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Treating this as all just him rather than a collective strategy… he doesn’t want to give the US (or, hypothetically, any other government) the pretext that individuals were endangered by being named. But this wouldn’t justify suppressing almost the entire file concerning some particular country, which is what he is being accused of doing in relation to Israel.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.