Hillary's Remarks to the Press on the Release of Confidential Documents

[pkpatriotic]

Hillary's Remarks to the Press on the Release of Confidential Documents (WikiLeaks)

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Treaty Room
Washington, DC
November 29, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, good afternoon. Do we have enough room in here?...........

QUOTE:
May be enough for rest of the world but not for US its self
UNQUOTE

..........I want to take a moment to discuss the recent news reports of classified documents that were illegally provided from United States Government computers. In my conversations with counterparts from around the world over the past few days, and in my meeting earlier today with Foreign Minister Davutoglu of Turkey, I have had very productive discussions on this issue.

The United States strongly condemns the illegal disclosure of classified information. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security, and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. This Administration is advancing a robust foreign policy that is focused on advancing America’s national interests and leading the world in solving the most complex challenges of our time, from fixing the global economy, to thwarting international terrorism, to stopping the spread of catastrophic weapons, to advancing human rights and universal values. In every country and in every region of the world, we are working with partners to pursue these aims.

So 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.

I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama Administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge. The President and I have made these partnerships a priority – and we are proud of the progress that they have helped achieve – and they will remain at the center of our efforts.

I will not comment on or confirm what are alleged to be stolen State Department cables. But I can say that the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential, including private discussions between counterparts or our diplomats’ personal assessments and observations. I want to make clear that our official foreign policy is not set through these messages, but here in Washington. Our policy is a matter of public record, as reflected in our statements and our actions around the world.

I would also add that to the American people and to our friends and partners, I want you to know that we are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information. I have directed that specific actions be taken at the State Department, in addition to new security safeguards at the Department of Defense and elsewhere to protect State Department information so that this kind of breach cannot and does not ever happen again.

Relations between governments aren’t the only concern created by the publication of this material. U.S. diplomats meet with local human rights workers, journalists, religious leaders, and others outside of governments who offer their own candid insights. These conversations also depend on trust and confidence. For example, if an anti-corruption activist shares information about official misconduct, or a social worker passes along documentation of sexual violence, revealing that person’s identity could have serious repercussions: imprisonment, torture, even death.

So whatever are the motives in disseminating these documents, it is clear that releasing them poses real risks to real people, and often to the very people who have dedicated their own lives to protecting others.

Now, I am 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 on which our common security depends.

There have been examples in history in which official conduct has been made public in the name of exposing wrongdoings or misdeeds. This is not one of those cases. In contrast, what is being put on display in this cache of documents is the fact that American diplomats are doing the work we expect them to do. They are helping identify and prevent conflicts before they start. They are working hard every day to solve serious practical problems – to secure dangerous materials, to fight international crime, to assist human rights defenders, to restore our alliances, to ensure global economic stability. This is the role that America plays in the world. This is the role our diplomats play in serving America. And it should make every one of us proud.

The work of our diplomats doesn’t just benefit Americans, but also billions of others around the globe. In addition to endangering particular individuals, disclosures like these tear at the fabric of the proper function of responsible government.

People of good faith understand the need for sensitive diplomatic communications, both to protect the national interest and the global common interest. Every country, including the United States, must be able to have candid conversations about the people and nations with whom they deal. And every country, including the United States, must be able to have honest, private dialogue with other countries about issues of common concern. I know that diplomats around the world share this view – but this is not unique to diplomacy. In almost every profession – whether it’s law or journalism, finance or medicine or academia or running a small business – people rely on confidential communications to do their jobs. We count on the space of trust that confidentiality provides. When someone breaches that trust, we are all worse off for it. And so despite some of the rhetoric we’ve heard these past few days, confidential communications do not run counter to the public interest. They are fundamental to our ability to serve the public interest.

In America, we welcome genuine debates about pressing questions of public policy. We have elections about them. That is one of the greatest strengths of our democracy. It is part of who we are and it is a priority for this Administration. But stealing confidential documents and then releasing them without regard for the consequences does not serve the public good, and it is not the way to engage in a healthy debate.

In the past few days, I have spoken with many of my counterparts around the world, and we have all agreed that we will continue to focus on the issues and tasks at hand. In that spirit, President Obama and I remain committed to productive cooperation with our partners as we seek to build a better, more prosperous world for all.

Thank you, and I’d be glad to take a few questions.

MR. CROWLEY: We’ll begin with Charlie Wolfson of CBS in his last week here covering the State Department.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Where are you going, Charlie?

QUESTION: I’ll (inaudible) into the sunset, but let me get to a question.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, sir. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, are you embarrassed by these leaks personally, professionally? And what harm have the leaks done to the U.S. so far that you can determine from talking to your colleagues?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Charlie, as I said in my statement, and based on the many conversations that I’ve had with my counterparts, I am confident that the partnerships and relationships that we have built in this Administration will withstand this challenge. The President and I have made these partnerships a priority, a real centerpiece of our foreign policy, and we’re proud of the progress that we have made over the last 22 months.

Every single day, U.S. Government representatives from the entire government, not just from the State Department, engage with hundreds if not thousands of government representatives and members of civil society from around the world. They carry out the goals and the interests and the values of the United States. And it is imperative that we have candid reporting from those who are in the field working with their counterparts in order to inform our decision-making back here in Washington.

I can tell you that in my conversations, at least one of my counterparts said to me, “Well, don’t worry about it. You should see what we say about you.” (Laughter.) So I think that this is well understood in the diplomatic community as part of the give-and-take. And I would hope that we will be able to move beyond this and back to the business of working together on behalf of our common goals.

MR. CROWLEY: Kim Ghattas of BBC.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Kim.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, I was wondering whether you could tell us what you think your upcoming trip is going to look like. Presumably, a lot of the people who have been mentioned in those alleged cables are going to have conversations with you. Do you think it’s going to cause you discomfort over the coming week as you engage in conversations with those leaders?

And I know you don’t want to comment on the particulars of the cables, but one issue that has been brought up into the daylight is the debate about Iran. What do you think the impact is going to be of those documents on the debate about Iran in the coming weeks and months?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, Kim, you’re right. And I don’t know if you’re going on this trip or not, but we will be seeing dozens of my counterparts in Astana, and then as I go on from Kazakhstan to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and then ending up in Bahrain for the Manama dialogue. And I will continue the conversations that I have started with some in person and over the phone over the last days, and I will seek out others because I want personally to impress upon them the importance that I place on the kind of open, productive discussions that we have had to date and my intention to continue working closely with them.

Obviously, this is a matter of great concern, because we don’t want anyone in any of the countries that could be affected by these alleged leaks here to have any doubts about our intentions and our about commitments. That’s why I stressed in my remarks that policy is made in Washington. The President and I have been very clear about our goals and objectives in dealing with the full range of global challenges that we face. And we will continue to be so and we will continue to look for every opportunity to work with our friends and partners and allies around the world and to deal in a very clear-eyed way with those with whom we have differences, which of course brings me to Iran.

I think that it should not be a surprise to anyone that Iran is a source of great concern not only in the United States, that what comes through in every meeting that I have anywhere in the world is a concern about Iranian actions and intentions. So if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that Iran poses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbors, and a serious concern far beyond her region.

That is why the international community came together to pass the strongest possible sanctions against Iran. It did not happen because the United States went out and said, “Please do this for us.” It happened because countries, once they evaluated the evidence concerning Iran’s actions and intentions, reached the same conclusion that the United States reached – that we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.

So if anyone reading the stories about these alleged cables thinks carefully, what they will conclude is that the concern about Iran is well founded, widely shared, and will continue to be at the source of the policy that we pursue with likeminded nations to try to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

MR. CROWLEY: We’ve got to let the Secretary get to her airplane and get to her trip. Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I will leave you in P.J.’s very good hands. Thank you.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, did you talk to anyone in Pakistan or India?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you all.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam. (Inaudible).

MR. CROWLEY: What we’ll do is we’ll take, say, a 30-minute filing break, and then we’ll reconvene in the Briefing Room and continue our discussion.

PRN: 2010/1720

 

[somebozo]

lip service at best..question of the day? who is financing wikileaks and who stops them from having their site shut?? Soon there will be a mega leak coming about it?? Just formulated this opinion reading today's news on various sites.

 

[pkpatriotic]

U.S. says foreign ties can withstand leaks
By Karen DeYoung and John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Obama administration sought Monday to dilute the fallout from the disclosure of more than 250,000 State Department cables, insisting that strong foreign partnerships could withstand the damage and that the leaks will not force any U.S. policy changes.

Some senior officials noted that the documents released by the Web site WikiLeaks portrayed an administration that was as tough on problem states such as Iran and North Korea in private as it tries to be in public.

But many acknowledged a far more disturbing reality, in which foreign governments will become far less open in their dealings with U.S. officials, and American diplomats will temper the information they send to Washington.

The leaks could undercut future attempts to discuss sensitive issues with other governments. One cable, sent from Seoul in February, revealed South Korea planning for the imminent fall of the North Korean government, complicating any future talks with Pyongyang.

Other cables could force a confrontation between the administration and Congress. Some of the documents, for instance, indicate China has brushed off repeated U.S. attempts to stop its transfer of sensitive equipment to Iran and North Korea - a finding likely to incense lawmakers impatient for progress with Beijing.

"Clearly, you don't want any information like this leaked illegally and disseminated to the public," a senior administration official said.

President Obama made no mention of the leaks during a public appearance to announce a freeze on federal pay. Although national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon made a number of calls to his counterparts overseas on the issue, the White House referred substantive questions about the documents to the State Department.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a statement before she left on a trip to Central Asia and the Persian Gulf, said that "the United States deeply regrets the disclosure of any information that was intended to be confidential." But, she said, "I am confident that the partnerships that the Obama administration has worked so hard to build will withstand this challenge."

The cables report conversations with kings, presidents and foreign ministers ranging from discussions on complicated international issues, complaints about U.S. policy and negotiations on aid and arms sales, to leaders encouraging attacks on one another's countries and calling one another liars. U.S. diplomats, in remarks clearly never intended to see the light of day, assess the credibility and personalities of close allies.

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has told his own country that attacks against terrorist targets there were conducted by Yemen's air force, discussed what were actually U.S. airstrikes at length with Gen. David H. Petraeus, then head of the U.S. Central Command, according to a memo recounting their January meeting.
Saleh "praised" the strikes that took place in December, the cable said, but complained that the Americans had killed too many civilians, an assessment with which Petraeus took issue. Saleh "did not have any objection, however, to General Petraeus's proposal to move away from the use of cruise missiles and instead have U.S. fixed-wing bombers circle outside Yemeni territory, 'out of sight,' " the cable said.

"We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh said, according to the cable.

Beyond the outrage and headlines already spreading abroad was the knowledge that there were many more revelations to come. In its initial Web postings over the weekend, WikiLeaks released only about a small fraction of the more than 250,000 documents it has said it will eventually publish, nearly all of them from the George W. Bush and Obama administrations. The New York Times, one of several news organizations that have received access to the documents, said in Monday's editions that it planned nine days of coverage.

"We haven't reached the bottom of it," said a senior Arab official whose government expects to be mentioned in many more releases. "It will take us weeks, if not months, to get through them."

The official said governments in his part of the world were less concerned about what the revelations will mean for their relations with the United States than about their own region. Other countries will worry not only about what his government "said about them but also what they said about us," he said.

"Even the Latin Americans are concerned," said a senior congressional aide. According to WikiLeaks, upcoming releases include thousands of State Department cables concerning countries such as Venezuela and Colombia, which have complicated relations with the United States and with each other.

Only two documents in the initial release came from the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan, both discussing U.S. diplomats' conversations with Ahmed Wali Karzai, President Hamid Karzai's half brother, and corruption allegations against him. There have thus far been no posted cables from the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan.

In some cases, the WikiLeaks records have only compounded frustrations of senior foreign officials with what they see as Washington's propensity to leak sensitive information. Saudi Arabia, whose King Abdullah is revealed in the cables to have urged a U.S. attack on Iran, has long questioned Washington's ability to keep a secret.

In a recent interview in Islamabad, a senior Pakistani intelligence official complained bitterly about the amount of information revealed by administration officials to author Bob Woodward in his recent book, "Obama's Wars,'' about Obama decision-making on Iraq. "I don't think anyone on the other side would realize the damage it has done to confidence on our side," the official said.

The senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said cables referring to Iran's nuclear program and North Korea's missile sales underscored "the depth of international concern over the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons and the extent to which it's a shared concern of the international community." In addition to Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Turkey also expressed concern over Iran, while asking the United States not to mention it as the reason for a new NATO missile defense system.

But another senior official said that other cables describing the administration's efforts to resettle detainees released from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba could prove damaging. Some still-unpublished documents, the official said, could contain the names of countries that are considering taking Guantanamo detainees but have not yet done so.

"They have every right to expect they will manage that news" themselves, the official said. "It could blow some deals."

The portrayal in a number of documents of China as reluctant to halt the transfer through its territory of missile and nuclear-weapons related technology could put pressure on an already brittle relationship between Washington and Beijing at a time when Congress is already concerned, and President Hu Jintao is preparing for a summit here in January.

At least five cables released so far described China as apparently turning a blind eye to proliferation to Iran and North Korea. One, dated Nov. 3, 2007, listed 10 separate occasions when the United States believed that flights carrying jet vanes - used in the production of missiles - passed through Beijing International Airport apparently on their way from North Korea to Iran.

Another cable, in September 2009, revealed that China was selling thermal imaging systems for night fighting to Iran - and using French technology in its manufacture. Last December, a cable reported that Iran was interested in buying five tons of carbon fiber - used in the manufacture of centrifuges for enriching uranium - from a Shanghai-based firm.

In February, a cable noted a request that China halt the sale of guidance systems for ballistic missiles from a Chinese company to a Malaysian firm because of fears that the firm was acting as a front for Iran. A fifth cable, in May, raised U.S. concerns that Chinese firms were selling North Korea precursors for chemical weapons.

"These are all good examples of the problem," said David Albright, the director of the Institute for Science and International Security. "China just doesn't fulfill its global obligations and this shows how it happens."
Albright and others predicted that the revelations about China could prompt more questions - by experts and by Congress - to the administration about the real extent of Beijing's cooperation.

Revelations of North Korea's persistent involvement with Iran's missile program could help bolster the administration's case that the international community needs to redouble its efforts to crack down on Pyongyang and Iran, especially when it comes to the movement of nuclear technology.

A document dated in February alleged that Iran has obtained 19 missiles from North Korea. The missiles have a longer range than anything Washington has publicly acknowledged Tehran possesses.

 

[pkpatriotic]

WikiLeaks founder could be charged under Espionage Act
By Ellen Nakashima and Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Federal authorities are investigating whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange violated criminal laws in the group's release of government documents, including possible charges under the Espionage Act, sources familiar with the inquiry said Monday.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the Justice Department and Pentagon are conducting "an active, ongoing criminal investigation.'' Others familiar with the probe said the FBI is examining everyone who came into possession of the documents, including those who gave the materials to WikiLeaks and also the organization itself. No charges are imminent, the sources said, and it is unclear whether any will be brought.

Former prosecutors cautioned that prosecutions involving leaked classified information are difficult because the Espionage Act is a 1917 statute that preceded Supreme Court cases that expanded First Amendment protections. The government also would have to persuade another country to turn over Assange, who is outside the United States.

But the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry is rapidly unfolding, said charges could be filed under the act. The U.S. attorney's office in Alexandria - which in 2005 brought Espionage Act charges, now dropped, against two former pro-Israel lobbyists - is involved in the effort, the sources said.

The Pentagon is leading the investigation and it remains unclear whether any additional charges would be brought in the military or civilian justice systems. Pfc. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst suspected of being the source of the WikiLeaks documents, was arrested by the military this year.

Holder was asked Monday how the United States could prosecute Assange, who is an Australian citizen. "Let me be very clear," he replied. "It is not saber rattling.

"To the extent there are gaps in our laws," Holder continued, "we will move to close those gaps, which is not to say . . . that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or a subject of an investigation that's ongoing." He did not indicate that Assange is being investigated for possible violations of the Espionage Act.

Although the Justice Department has taken the position that media organizations could be prosecuted for printing leaked classified information under the legislation, that prospect is unlikely because of official aversion to running afoul of the First Amendment, experts said. Indeed, the Justice Department has never brought such a case, they said.

"Whenever you're talking about a media organization, the department is going to look very closely to ensure that any prosecution doesn't undermine the valid First Amendment functioning of the press," said Kenneth Wainstein, former assistant attorney general in the national security division.

But when it comes to Assange, Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel, said: "I'm confident that the Justice Department is figuring out how to prosecute him."

Smith noted that State Department general counsel Harold H. Koh had sent a letter to Assange on Saturday urging him not to release the cables, to return all classified material and to destroy all classified records from WikiLeaks databases.

"That language is not only the right thing to do policy-wise but puts the government in a position to prosecute him," Smith said. Under the Espionage Act, anyone who has "unauthorized possession to information relating to the national defense" and has reason to believe it could harm the United States may be prosecuted if he publishes it or "willfully" retains it when the government has demanded its return, Smith said.
But, said former federal prosecutor Baruch Weiss, that statute raises difficulties of its own. "How do you prove that a particular cable about secret negotiations with Russia was dangerous to national security? You have to disclose more classified information to explain to the jury the damage brought about by the disclosure," he said.

Perhaps the most significant issue is the Constitution's protection of people's right to speak freely and to exchange ideas.

"If the government were to prosecute the person who received and disseminated the classified information - as opposed to the individual who leaked it from within the government - mainstream media would express the concern that they could face prosecution for reporting information they routinely receive from government insiders," Wainstein said.

Fundamentally, Weiss said, the WikiLeaks case "is not about the disclosure of troop movements to al-Qaeda or giving the recipe for the plutonium bomb to North Korea. This is the widespread publication of information that is important in determining the future policy of the United States, that could be very important for people in assessing how well our government is doing its job. It's a good example of the problems created by the First Amendment clashing with criminal law, the law protecting national defense information."

All the experts agreed that it may be difficult for the United States to gain access to Assange, who apparently has avoided traveling to the country. Most nations' extradition treaties exempt crimes viewed as political. "I can imagine a lot of Western allies would view this not as a criminal act, but as a political act," said Weiss, who was on the legal team that defended the two former pro-Israel lobbyists.

Assange's legal pursuers are not confined to the United States. The International Criminal Police Organization issued an arrest warrant this month for Assange, who is wanted in Sweden on suspicion of rape and sexual harassment. Interpol, which is based in Lyon, France, said it had received the warrant from Swedish police, according to wire service and newspaper reports.

Assange has proclaimed his innocence and suggested the accusations are part of a U.S.-orchestrated smear campaign to undercut WikiLeaks' prestige.

In addition to vowing to hold WikiLeaks to account, the administration also instituted new measures to try to prevent leaks.

Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob J. Lew instructed government departments and agencies to ensure that users of classified information networks do not have broader access than is necessary to do their jobs, and to restrict the use of removable media such as CDs or flash drives on such networks.

OMB, the federal Information Security Oversight Office and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence will evaluate aid the agencies in their efforts to strengthen classified information security, Lew said.

The White House move in turn comes a day after the Pentagon announced similar steps to bolster network security following a review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in August.

"Protecting information critical to our nation's security is the responsibility of each individual who is granted access to classified information," Lew said in his memo. "Any unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a violation of our law and compromises our national security."

But lawmakers and national security experts have chided the administration for not moving long ago to shore up network security. The U.S. military has been investigating Manning for months because of suspicions that he passed large amounts of classified material to WikiLeaks.

"There's been a great deal of attention paid to this issue for a long time and a lot of work has been done," White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said. "It's an ongoing process."

 

[pkpatriotic]

Wikileaks: Leaked US Cables Reveal Sensitive Diplomacy
YouTube - Wikileaks: Leaked US Cables Reveal Sensitive Diplomacy