USPlanToDestroyWikiLeaks

U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks release: March 15, 2010
keywords: WikiLeaks, U.S. intelligence, U.S. Army, National Ground Intelligence Center, NGIC, classi?ed, SECRET, NOFORN
restraint: Classi?ed SECRET/NOFORN (US)
“Julian Assange is a former computer hacker convicted by the Australian government for hacking into US government and DoD computer networks in 1997. Julian Assange is widely known for his support for open government initiatives, leftist ideology, anti-US views, and opposition to the Global War on Terrorism…..”
 
title: Wikileaks.org - An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?
date: March 18, 2008
group: United States Army Counterintelligence Center, Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch; Department of Defence Intelligence Analysis Program
author: Michael D. Horvath
link: http://wikileaks.org/?le/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
pages: 32
Description
By Julian Assange (julian@wikileaks.org)
This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.
“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classi?ed information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize nthe organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends “The identi?cation, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site”.
[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan was ine?ective]. As an odd justi?caton for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website”.
The report provides further justi?cation by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks
 
(U) Wikileaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign
Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?
NGIC-2381-0617-08
Information Cutoff Date: 28 February 2008
Publication Date: 18 March 2008
National Security Information
Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions
Derived from: Multiple sources
Declassify on: Source documents marked 25X1
Date of source: 20060725
This Counterintelligence Analysis Report is published under the auspices of the Department of
Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP).
Prepared by:
Michael D. Horvath
Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch
Army Counterintelligence Center
External Coordination: National Ground Intelligence Center[1]
This product responds to HQ, Department of Army, production requirement C764-97-0005.
ACIC Product Identification Number is RB08-0617.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Purpose
(U) This special report assesses the counterintelligence threat posed to the US Army by the
Wikileaks.org Web site
(U) Executive Summary
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force
protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security
(INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US
Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to
DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified
DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by
a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or
organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet. Such information could be of
value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign
insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against
US force, both within the United States and abroad.
(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US
government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot
be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ?leakers? or ?whistleblowers? of sensitive or
classified DoD documents are former US government employees. These claims are highly
suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or
whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and
providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory
information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect
the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information. On the other hand, one
cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be
inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with
limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.
(U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal
behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, the
former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the
Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or
whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other
information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations. The
developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign
government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic,
oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2]
(S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial
review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons
accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information
posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org
Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,
and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to
convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3
 
(U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government
and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other
countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of
information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and
open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs
any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business
information. Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face
legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified
government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false,
slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature. For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the
United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing
of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax
evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against
Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site
was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and
organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows
the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front
organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4]
(S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and
several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have
the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted
they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious
content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to
remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting
of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these
countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and
whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the
Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of
employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers
could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make
such information public.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Key Judgments
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence,
OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.
(S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide
FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially
actionable information for targeting US forces.
(S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the
US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot
be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees
leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since
Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its
primary goals.
(U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,
misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception
management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to
specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.
(U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and
claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers
or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information,
propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information
in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.
(U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting
the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification,
exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current
or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this
center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the
Wikileaks.org Web site.
(U) Table of Contents
(U) Purpose
(U) Executive Summary
(U) Key Judgments
(U) Background
(U) Discussion
(U) Intelligence Gaps
(U) Conclusions
(U) Point of Contact
(U) References
(U) Appendix A: Glossary
(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis of Leaked Tables of
Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
(U) Tables
(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216) Table of
Equipment (TOE)
(U) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by Wikileaks.org for
the NGIC Report Entitled ?(U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004?
[NGIC-1127-7138-06] posted on its Web site
 
(U) Figures
(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser
(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ?(U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004? As Published in a Wikileaks.org Article.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Background
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and
technologists from the United States, China, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Its
Web site became operational in early 2007. The advisory board for Wikileaks.org includes
journalists, cryptographers, a ?former US intelligence analyst,? and expatriates from Chinese,
Russian, and Tibetan refugee communities. The ACIC does not have any information to
associate or link the ?former US intelligence analyst? on the Wikileaks.org advisory board with
the leakage of sensitive or classified DoD documents posted to the Web site.[6]
(U) Wikileaks.org claims to have developed an uncensorable version of the publicly available
Wikipedia interface that is intended for mass leakage of sensitive documents that expose
wrongdoing and for allowing users to comment on the documents posted to the Web site.
Through its Web site, Wikileaks.org encourages large-scale anonymous leaking and posting of
sensitive and confidential government and business documents on the Internet. Wikileaks.org
claims to have received more than 1.2 million documents from dissident communities and
anonymous sources throughout the world. If true, additional articles involving sensitive or
classified DoD will most likely be posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site in the future.[7]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses its own coded software combined with Wiki, MediaWiki, OpenSSL,
FreeNet, TOR, and PGP to make it difficult for foreign governments, FISS, law enforcement
agencies, and foreign businesses to determine where a leaked document originated from and who
was responsible for leaking the document. The goal of Wikileaks.org is to ensure that leaked
information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations, and individual users because
once a leaked document is placed on the Internet it is extremely difficult to remove the document
entirely.[8]
(S//NF) The obscurification technology[9] used by Wikileaks.org has exploitable vulnerabilities.
Organizations with properly trained cyber technicians, the proper equipment, and the proper
technical software could most likely conduct computer network exploitation (CNE) operations or
use cyber tradecraft to obtain access to Wikileaks.org‘s Web site, information systems, or
networks that may assist in identifying those persons supplying the data and the means by which
they transmitted the data to Wikileaks.org. Forensic analysis of DoD unclassified and classified
networks may reveal the location of the information systems used to download the leaked
documents. The metadata, MD5 hash marks, and other unique identifying information within
digital documents may assist in identifying the parties responsible for leaking the information. In
 
addition, patterns involving the types of leaked information, classification levels of the leaked
information, development of psychological profiles, and inadvertent attribution of an insider
through poor OPSEC could also assist in the identification of insiders.
(U) Wikileaks.org supports the US Supreme Court ruling regarding the unauthorized release of
the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, which stated that ?only a free and unrestrained press can
effectively expose deception in government.? The Wikileaks.org Web site further states the
following:
?We aim for maximum political impact. We believe that transparency in
government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government, and
stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the
world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires
information. Historically that information has been costly—in terms of human life
and human rights. But with technological advances—the Internet, and
cryptography—the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.?[10]
(U) The OPSEC measures used in the submission of leaked information to Wikileaks using the
Internet are designed to protect the identity and personal security of the persons or entities
sending or posting information to the Web site. Wikileaks.org claims that any attempt at trace
routing of IP addresses, MAC addresses, and other identifying information of a home computer
submissions (as opposed to cyber café submissions) through Wikileaks.org‘s Internet submission
system would require a knowledge of information available only to Wikileaks.org programmers
and to a rights organization serving the electronic community, or would require specialized
ubiquitous traffic analysis of Internet messages and routing systems. Nevertheless, it remains
technically feasible for FISS, law enforcement organizations, and foreign businesses that have
the motivation, intentions, capability, and opportunity to gain online access or physical access to
Wikileaks.org information systems to identify and trace whistleblowers through cyber
investigations, advanced cyber tools, and forensics.[11]
(U) Another method of posting leaked information to the Web site anonymously is for leakers to
use postal mail to send the information to volunteers in various countries who have agreed to
receive encrypted CDs and DVDs from leakers. These volunteers then forward the information
to designated personnel, who then upload the data on the CDs and DVDs to the Wikileaks.org
Web servers. To protect or mask the sender, leakers can take OPSEC measures such as using
Wikileaks.org encryption protocols when writing CDs and DVDs; using gloves while wrapping,
taping, handling, and mailing packages; and not including a return address or including a fake
return address on packages containing leaked information. Such measures are designed to protect
the identity of the leakers and prevent FISS, law enforcement, and postal inspectors from
intercepting the mail and decoding the information on the data storage devices in transit.
Wikileaks.org also claims that it is developing easy-to-use software to encrypt the CDs and
DVDs. Use of such methods also protects facilitators or intermediaries from harm because they
would not know the content of the encrypted submissions.[12]
(U) A Wikileaks.org spokesperson stated in early January 2007 that about 22 persons are
involved in the Open Society Initiative to make governments and corporations more accountable
 
to the citizens of the world. Wikileaks intends to seek funding from individual persons and
groups such as humanitarian organizations that fund sociopolitical activity intended to promote
democracy and human rights around the world through open access to government and business
information.[13]
(S//NF) Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and
Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site to prevent citizens
or adversaries from accessing sensitive information, embarrassing information, or alleged
propaganda. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia have asserted that they have a right to
remove from the Internet protected government information, disinformation, and propaganda that
is intended to embarrass or make false allegations against their governments. China, Israel, North
Korea, and Russia are assessed to have state-sponsored CNE, computer network attack (CNA),
and cyber forensics capabilities that would most likely allow penetration or disrupt viewing of
the Wikileaks.org Web site. China, Israel, and Russia have used or are suspected of having used
CNA to target terrorist or dissident Web sites that have posted objectionable material intended to
embarrass, harm, or encourage terrorism or opposition to the government.[14]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Discussion
(U//FOUO) An insider could present a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, or
INFOSEC threat to the US Army through deliberate unauthorized release of official DoD
documents and posting of sensitive or classified information to the Internet. Several recent
postings to the Wikileaks.org Web site in November 2007 of sensitive US Army information
marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and in December 2007 of US Army
information classified SECRET//NOFORN highlight the insider threat to DoD. The actual
perpetrators responsible for the unauthorized released of such documents could be subject to
administrative action, nonjudicial punishment, or criminal charges and prosecution if they are
identified.
(U) Wikileaks.org Analysis of US Army Tables of Equipment in Iraq and
Afghanistan from April 2007
(U) Wikileaks.org specifically cited 2,000 pages of leaked US Army documents with information
on the Tables of Equipment (TOEs) for US and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as a
perfect example of the sort of information that would benefit from a global analysis. These
documents provided information on the US forces, a description of equipment and total number
of equipment that were assigned to actual military units assigned to US Central Command in
April 2007. Wikileaks.org staff members and various authors and contributors have written
numerous news articles and posted the raw data in spreadsheets or Structured Query Language
(SQL) data base so anyone can examine the information, conduct research, comment upon,
discuss the various units, see the items of equipment, see what they do, and draw their own
conclusions about the strategic, political, military, and human rights significance of the
information.[15}
 
(U//FOUO) Table 1 below is an abbreviated sample of information contained in a leaked digital
database document or spreadsheets available on the Wikileaks.org Web site:
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216)
Table of Equipment (TOE). [16]
UIC  LIN  NSN  Item Name  PBIC Type DND Qnty
M94216 72045Z 581001X111125 WARLOCK GREEN, ECM:
GREEN EDO CO
V TPE N 15
M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED
EDO COMM &
T TPE N 2
M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED
EDO COMM &
V TPE N 13
M94216 B67766 1.24001E+12 BINOCULA MOD CN M22 N TPE N 9
M94216 E63317 6.60501E+12 COMPAS MAGNETIC UNMTD P TPE N 3
M94216 J03261 5.85501E+12 ILLUMI INFR AN/PEQ-2A P TPE N 6
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 4
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 8
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49
M94216 L91975 1.005E+12 MG 50 M2 HB FL GD/VEH P TPE N 3
M94216 L92352 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240 N TPE N 2
M94216 M09009 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 5.56MM M249 P TPE N 3
M94216 M74823 1.01001E+12 MT MACH GUN MK64 MOD9 T TPE N 1
M94216 M75577 1.005E+12 MT TPD MG CAL .50 M3 P TPE N 1
M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B N TPE N 2
M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B T TPE N 2
M94216 N05482 5.85501E+12 NIGHT VIS G AN/PVS-7B P TPE N 8
M94216 T92446 2.32001E+12 TRK UTIL HMMWV M1114 T TPE N 1
M94216 W95537 2.33001E+12 TRL CGO 3/4T M101 2WH T TPE N 3
M94216 YF2014 232001C043031 HMMWV M1114: W/ OFK5 T TPE N 2
M94216 YF2049 2.32001E+12 TRUCK,UTILITY-(M1116) T TPE N 1
Legend
 
UIC – Unit Identification Code, a six-character, alphanumeric code that uniquely identifies each
Active, Reserve, and National Guard unit of the US Armed Forces.
LIN – Line Item Number for equipment.
NSN – NATO Stock Number, a standardized stack identification number for supplies and
equipment within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Item Name - Brief description of the equipment.
PBIC – Property Book Identification Code, which categorizes the type of property listed into one
of 10 categories.
Type (of equipment):
TPE – Theater Provided Equipment; specific equipment that is provided by the
Theater of Operations such as CENTCOM to perform the mission based on the
unique operating environment
LTT – Long Term Training; equipment need for long term training or
deployment.
APS – Army Prepositioned Stock; equipment drawn by a unit that is already
prepositioned in the Theater of Operations.
DND – Do Not Deploy; this field is a Yes/No column that lists equipment that remains at the
home station and is not deployed with the unit when sent overseas.
OH Qty – On-hand Quantity is the number of item of equipment that is currently available to the
unit; it does not necessarily represent the actual required number needed by the unit to be fully
mission capable.[17}
 
(S//NF) The foreign staff writer for Wikileaks.org, Julian Assange, wrote several news articles,
coauthored other articles, and developed an interactive data base for the leaked documents. In
addition, other Wikileaks.org writers and various writers for other media publications wrote
separate news articles based on the leaked information posted to the Web site. Assange and his
coauthors claim that the 2,000 pages of leaked US military information provides unit names,
organizational structure, and tables of equipment (TOEs) for the US Army in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They also claimed that unidentified persons within the US government leaked the
information to facilitate action by the US Congress to force the withdrawal of US troops by
cutting off funding for the war.[18]
(U//FOUO) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers purport that the leaked sensitive TOE
information reveals the following
 
Secretive US document exploitation centers.
Detainee operations and alleged human rights violations.
Information on the US State Department, US Air Force, US Navy and US Marines units,
Iraqi police and coalition forces from Poland, Denmark, Ukraine, Latvia, Slovakia,
Romania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and El Salvador serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nearly the entire order of battle for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as of April 2007.
Alleged revelations that the US government violated the Chemical Weapons Convention
in Iraq and Afghanistan.[19]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org encouraged persons to comment on the leaked Army documents and
explained how the catalogued information and cross-referenced databases could be used by other
researchers or journalists to prepare reports or assessments. According to Wikileaks.org, the
information posted can be used to prepare objective new reports. Conversely, this same
information could be manipulated to prepare biased news reports or be used for conducting
propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, perception management, or influence operations
against the US Army by a variety of domestic and foreign actors. [20]
(U) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers developed and applied a specific methodology for
examining and analyzing the leaked TOE information, a methodology they then placed online to
assist others in conducting their own research. See Appendix B. They also provided links to
associated online reference material. The methodology used by Assange and other authors for the
analysis of leaked tables of equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan both a SQLite
database is described in Appendix B.
(S//NF) The TOEs for US Army units deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq in April 2007 provide a
wealth of information that could be used by FISS, foreign terrorist groups, and Iraqi insurgents to
identify unit capabilities and vulnerabilities that could assist in conducting attacks against camps,
convoys, and other targets. The information can also be compared with other publicly available
databases to develop extensive order of battle files of vehicle types, communications and
jamming equipment, information systems, and weapons systems, files that could be used to
determine the capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities of the organic equipment assigned to
military units. Such information could aid enemy forces in planning terrorist attacks, selecting
the most effective type and emplacement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), building
triggering devices to defeat countermeasures organic to friendly units, and selecting the most
effective direct and indirect weapons systems for conducting physical attacks against targets such
as military units, convoys, and base camps.
(U) One Wikileaks.org news article also discusses the use of IEDs by foreign terrorists and
insurgent groups and claims that the IED threat has resulted in a shift in DoD funding priorities,
similar to the Manhattan Project to develop atomic weapons in World War II, for current
research, development and fielding of IED countermeasures through the Joint IED Defeat
Organization. In addition, the author of the article attempts to provide a cost-to-benefit analysis
of these IED tactics and countermeasures. The author claims that the leaked information reveals
that 12,097 Warlock, Counter RCIED (Remote-controlled Improvised Explosive Device)
Electronic Warfare (CREW), systems are in Iraq and that the purpose of the Warlock is to jam
radio signals from devices such as mobile phones to prevent such signals from detonating IEDs.
 
The author claimed that 7,530 systems used in Iraq were purchased at a cost of $1.1 billion. No
claim was made regarding the cost of remaining 4,567 systems.
(S//NF) The author of the above-mentioned article incorrectly interprets the leaked data
regarding the components and fielding of the Warlock system, resulting in unsupportable and
faulty conclusions to allege war profiteering, price gouging and increased revenues by DoD
contractors involved in counter-IED development efforts. This article provides an example of
how the leaked TOE information can be manipulated and misinterpreted to produce inaccurate
information for a news article.
(S//NF) The author of the article then argues that the US Army receives a poor return on its
investment in counter-IEDs. The following excerpt from the article could be used by adversaries
in potential propaganda or influence operations:
If we view IEDs as a rebel investment, to which the United States must pay
dividends in defensive equipment costs, then every insurgent dollar spent has a
return on investment of somewhere around a thousand fold. Significant price
gouging by counter-IED defense contractors is evident. For comparison, each
briefcase-sized ?Warlock? IED jammer, of which is there is on average more than
one per vehicle, is worth $150,000; however, as can be seen by this analysis that
is more costly than nearly every vehicle it was designed to protect. The
?Warlock? producer, a DoD defense contractor [name redacted], predicts
financial year 2007 will see a 400 percent total revenue increase over its 2003
levels.[21]
(S//NF) Intelligence indicates that insurgents in Afghanistan have recovered several Warlock
systems.[22] It is possible that Warlock systems captured in Afghanistan were sent to Iran for
reverse engineering and for use in developing countermeasures to Warlock.
(S//NF) Were a Warlock system successfully reversed engineered or countermeasures
successfully developed by foreign terrorists, insurgents, or the Iranian government, US and
Coalition forces would be at greater risk of RCIED attacks, especially those units equipped with
Warlock systems similar to those that had been captured and exploited. It is also possible that
any countermeasures developed to defeat the Warlock system would be provided to the Jaysh alMahdi (JAM) and other anti-US insurgent or terrorist groups operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The TOEs could be used to identify and target specific units equipped with the same type of
Warlock systems for which countermeasures had been developed.
(U) The Wikileaks.org authors believe that the leaked documents list Army equipment held by
the US Army, Marines, Air Force, Coalition, and possibly CIA units in Iraq and Afghanistan as
of April 2007. The authors stated that the data only includes items registered with battle planning
systems for logistics and appears to cover most valuable major end items of equipment. The data,
according to the authors, does not include soldiers‘ combat pay, transportation, research and
development, and home station costs of the soldiers, nor does it include most supplies,
ammunition, and other disposable equipment and consumable items.[23}
 
(U) Wikileaks.org staff personnel allegedly wrote a script or computer program to cross
reference each item in the leaked document with NSNs gleaned from public US logistics
equipment price catalogs from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The authors claim that
$1.112 billion worth of US Army-managed military equipment in Afghanistan is listed in the
leaked documents. The author believed the actual total value of the equipment to be several times
higher.[24]
(U) The spreadsheets and list contains codes to identify military units, supply item codes, and
other logistics data. The authors believed that the most useful data field for investigatory
purposes was the NSN. The authors found several Internet sites that allow public searches of the
NSNs, and this information was merged with the TOE into the SQL-generated database on the
Web site. For example, the author specifically mentioned NSN catalogues that are publicly
available on the Internet from the DLA.[25] The DLA Web site identifies many items on the
spreadsheets and includes prices that were merged into the database and used to generate the
estimate for the total value of the equipment.[26]
(U//FOUO) Julian Assange also stated in his news articles involving the TOE information that
persons were welcome to assist in the following future actions and areas of research involving
the equipment listings:
A computer program would be written to expand the military unit abbreviations (for
example, HHC—Headquarters and Headquarters Company) to make is easier for users to
visually analyze entries in the database.
Make further comments on military units in the list and their significance. The entries
would be cross linked with available news sources.
Make further comments on equipment items in the list and their significance.
Expand and improve links and other information for US war-funding legislation and bills.
Attempt to answer questions on specific issues with NSN codes. The authors stated that
the NSNs are a 13-digit code. Of those 13 digits, 12 are numeric. The seventh is
alphanumeric, and the publicly searchable NSN database seems to be able to locate items
if they have a number in the seventh place, but, not if there is a letter in the seventh place.
They ask the following questions: 1) What is the significance for this alphanumeric
character in the seventh position? 2) What does a letter as opposed to a number signify?
3) Is there a more complete public database for NSN codes than the one given? 4) Are
these alphanumeric NSNs Management Control Numbers as speculated?
Create an interactive database browser.[27]
(U) Julian Assange and other Wikileaks.org authors continually encourage other persons with an
interest in the information to comment on their work or conduct their own research and publish
the results on Wikileaks.org.
(U) Alleged Violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty by US
Military in Iraq and Afghanistan
(U) On 9 November 2007, Wikileaks.org published an exclusive investigative report claiming
that the United States ?”had almost certainly violated the Chemical Weapons Convention?”
 
(CWC), as originally drafted by the United Kingdom in 1997. The author, Julian Assange,
claimed the deployment of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile also called Chlorobenzylidene
Malononitrile) munitions and dispensing equipment and weapons capable of firing CS gas by the
United States was a violation of the CWC. The author also claimed the United States had at least
2,386 low-grade chemical weapons deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. These items also appeared
in the 2,000-page listing of nearly one million items of US military equipment deployed in Iraq
and leaked to Wikileaks.org. The items are labeled under the military‘s own NATO supply
classification for chemical weapons and equipment.[28]
(U) Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Defense Department released an official statement
that President Bush had authorized US military forces to use riot control agents (RCAs) such as
tear gas or CS gas. See Figure 1. The Defense Department stated that tear gas or CS gas, which
was issued to US troops, would be used only to save civilian lives and in accordance with the
CWC, as amended and ratified by the United States. Some chemical weapons experts in the
United States and other countries expressed the belief that this 2003 authorization might violate
the CWC treaty. These domestic and foreign critics expressed the belief that any battlefield use
of tear gas would violate the CWC; offend crucial allies, including the United Kingdom and
Australia. In addition, the critics claimed that the usage of CS would provide the Iraqi leader,
Saddam Hussein, a pretext for using chemical weapons against the United States and coalition
forces.[29]
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U//FOUO) In the report published on Wikileaks.org, the author claimed that any use of
chemical weapons such as CS gas for military operations is illegal. The Chemical Weapons
Convention of 1997, drafted by the United Kingdom declares ?Each State Party undertakes not
to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.? It only grants permissible use to ?law
 
enforcement including domestic riot control.? The authors used this interpretation of the CWC
drafted by the United Kingdom to make the allegation that the United States had violated the
treaty. [30]
(U//FOUO) It must be noted, that US policy as stated in Executive Order No. 11850, 8 April
1975, Renunciation of Certain Uses in War of Chemical Herbicides and Riot Control Agents,
renounced first use of herbicides in war (except for specified defensive uses) and first use of
RCAs in war except for defensive military modes to save lives. In ratifying the CWC, the US
Senate wrote an amendment into its resolution approving the CWC that stated United States‘
interpretation of how RCAs might be used for specific defensive purposes, as specified by the
1975 Executive Order.[31]
(U) Such varying interpretations reflect a deliberate ambiguity in the CWC, which states that
?riot-control agents may not be used as a method of warfare.? The original CWC and modified
CWC approved by the US Senate, however, does not define this phrase ?method of warfare.?
The actual version of the CWC passed by the US Senate was not considered by the authors of the
report. The CWC ratified by the US Senate list exceptions in the usage of RCAs for US military
forces that are not considered by the US government to be in violation of the CWC.[32]
(U) In the same report, the authors claimed that the use of white phosphorus by the US military
during the 2004 assault on Fallujah, Iraq, should also be considered a violation of the CWC. The
authors noted, however, that the US Army claimed usage of white phosphorous as ?a smoke
screen? and ?an incendiary? in the Fallujah operation, and that this usage is not technically
covered by the CWC.
(U) Alleged Human Rights Violations Related to Joint Task Force–Guantanamo
Standard Operating Procedures
(U//FOUO) Another example of leaked information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site on or
about 7 November 2007 is an outdated copy of the Joint Task Force–Guantanamo, Camp Delta
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) marked as UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO, signed by MG
Miller and dated 28 March 2003. A news article written by Wikileaks.org staff writers, also
posted on 7 November 2007, claims the SOP exposes systematic methods for preventing illegal
combatants and detained prisoners incarcerated at Joint Task Force–Guantanamo facilities at
Camp Delta from meeting with the International Red Cross, as well as the use of extreme
psychological stress as a means of torture against detainees. The unauthorized release of the SOP
has prompted authors posting to the Wikileaks.org Web site to claim that the document proves
the US Army was torturing and violating the human rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
This SOP was also the subject of a lawsuit by international human rights groups and a domestic
civil rights organization requesting the release of the document under the US Freedom of
Information Act.[33]
(U) The author claimed that subsequent US military statements including a DoD spokesperson,
to Reuters News Service and the Miami Herald confirm the veracity of the JTF SOP document.
On Wednesday, 14 November 2007, a week after the SOP was posted to Web site, Wikileaks.org
claimed that it received an e-mail message from the ?Pentagon? (DoD) demanding that the
 
documents posted to the Web site be censored and removed from the Web site. The actual
wording of the DoD e-mail message sent to Wikileaks.org requested that the document be
removed from the Web site and that the procedures under the Freedom of Information Act be
used to request release of the SOP.[34]
(U) Leakage of Classified Information to Wikileaks.org
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org also posted a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC),
classified SECRET//NOFORN, entitled ? (U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April
2004,” (NGIC-1127-7138-06). The NGIC report was the second in a series of reports that
analyzed recent warfare in complex environments such as urban environments. See Figure 2.
The NGIC report discusses enemy use of asymmetric tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP)
during the Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 and offers many useful lessons learned regarding how
a relatively weak adversary can prevent the United States from accomplishing its military
objectives. Wikileaks.org claims the document was leaked by a source it refers to as ?Peryton,?
who is described as a former employee of NGIC. Both a copy of the actual NGIC classified
report (in PDF) and the Wikileaks.org news article were posted on the Wikileaks.org Web site. A
variety of newspapers, wire services, and other news and media organizations wrote numerous
articles based on the original Wikileaks.org news article and actual classified document posted to
their Web site.[35]
(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole may exist within DoD or elsewhere in
the US government who is actively providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org
cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the claim that the leaker is a former NGIC employee is highly
suspect, since Wikileaks.org claims that the protection of the anonymity of the ?whistleblower?
or ?leaker? is one of its primary concerns. In addition, this claim could simply be a crude attempt
to mislead investigations into who leaked the document. Use of a code name, incorrect
employment information, or incorrect status are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures
designed to protect the identity of the current or former ?insider? who leaked the information. In
addition, usage of present and past verb tenses and other contradictions in referencing ?Peryton?
by the Wikileaks author and staff personnel are most likely part of a deliberate deception, but
one cannot completely rule out the possibility that some of these contradictions could be
inadvertent OPSEC errors made by authors lacking experience in protecting their methods or
sources.
(S//NF) Unclassified e-mail addresses and work telephone numbers of the authors and other
persons referenced in the NGIC report were listed in the NGIC document, thus making them
available to members of the news media attempting to verify the leaked information.
Wikileaks.org and some other news organizations did attempt to contact the NGIC personnel by
e-mail or telephone to verify the information. Such efforts by Wikileaks.org to verify the
information are in contravention to its stated policy not to attempt to verify the information it
receives from its sources. Wikileaks.org went forward with publishing their news article based
on the classified NGIC report although they did not receive a response to their inquiry. This is of
interest because some journalists exploit the lack of a response to their inquiries by implying that
a refusal to respond, failure to respond to a FOIA request, or failure to verify or receive other
information presumes that those failing to respond have something to hide. This further weaken
 
the claim that an alleged former NGIC employee leaked the information and strengthens other
possibilities. A former NGIC employee would be regarded by many as a highly credible source
and either taken at his or her word or asked to provide other bona fides to verify the employment
claim. Given the high visibility and publicity associated with publishing this classified report by
Wikileaks.org, however, attempts to verify the information were prudent and show journalist
responsibility to the newsworthiness or fair use of the classified document if they are
investigated or challenged in court.[36}

Julian Assange
Enemy of the State Hero of the People
By Lucy Carne LONDON
SEEDS OF CHANGE: Julian Assange the boy and the thorn in the side of governments, and a rally by his Brisbane supporters this week
In front of an adoring crowd at the Frontline journalist’s club in London last month, Australia Julian Assange explained why he’s risking the wrath of the world’s most powerful governments.
In his face could still be seen traces of the sweet natured, sensitive little boy his Sunshine Coast-based mother has described and, smiling, the Queensland born 39 year old leaned into the microphone.
“They say I enjoy crushing bastards and. Yes, that’s part of my motivation,” Assange said.
“For some reason, the White House finds that offensive.”
Today, the founder if whistle blowing website WikiLeaks and the man on whom the world’s spotlight is focused, sits is a grey tracksuit in one of western Europe’s biggest prsions.
This week he was remanded in custody of rape, sexual assault and unlawful coercion stemming from alleged  non-consensual sex without a condom with two women in Sweden.
Assange’s imprisonment, after he handed himself in, was met with relief in the US, where authorities were angered by his website’s release of embarrassing diplomatic cables last week.
The man who kicked the hornets’ nest had been silences they thought.
“I hadn’t heard that but it sounds like good news to me,” US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said on being told of Assange’s arrest.
But while Assange grows restless behind bars – he has already complained about the “boring” daytime television and his request to be reunited with his own laptop has been denied – a global groundswell of support has grown.
The strongest act of revenge is coming from a group of ”hacktivists”  known as Anomymous, which temporariiy shut down the websites of US and Swedish corporations this week.
The group also froze the websites of credit-card companies Visa and Mastercard,n which had cancelled financial donations to WikiLeaks.
Post Finance – the Swiss bank that froze Assange’s private account – was disabled too, as was the Swedish prosecution office and the Swedish lawyers representing the two  women who claim  to have been sexually assaulted by Assange.
The Anonymous group’s spokesman, known only as Coldblood, told reports they had not met Assange and were not connected to his organization but felt the need to defend him.
“If we let WikiLeaks fall without a fight then government will think they can just take down any sites they wish or disagree with,” Coldblood said.
In Brisbane on Thursday, some 300 protestors took to the streets in anger at Assange’s imprisonment.
Protests in London were due to be held today.
More than 35,000 people have joined a Facebook group to support Assange, with calls for all members to donate to his legal fund, while around 28,000 Australians have signed a letter to US President BARACK Obama supporting him.
In an open letter published yesterday, prominent supports, including Australia documentary film maker John Pilger, Minty Python member Terry Jones, English actress Miriam Margolyes and author Iain Banks, call for his immediate release from jail
Assange’s unusually harsh imprisonment for allegedly ignoring two women’s  requests to use contraception has caused this sudden swell of skepticism and fury.
Many believe it is a flimsy excuse to keep Assange, who was placed on Interpol’s most wanted list, within reach of the US Justice Department so it can prosecute him under the Espionage Act.
Even while he is hailed by the public as a champion of transparency, to the governments of Australia and the US he remains a menace. To them he is not an innocent messenger but an anti-government terrorist who wants to harm the US and governments across the world.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard labeled WikiLeaks’s activities illegal but, despite calls for her to do so, has failed to outline any Australian law that Assange has broken.
Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland also has stood by his condemnation of Assange, while arch-conservative US politician Sarah Palin called him an anti-American operative with blood on his hands.”
How did the tousled-haired boy in overalls grow up to become an Andy Warhol-esque hero of the people.
“Hr can seem – with his spectral white hair, pa8iled skin, cool eyes, and expansive forehead – like a rail thin being who has rocketed to Earth to deliver humanity some hidden truth,” The New Yorker wrote in June.
Born in Townsville in 1971, Assange has described his childhood as “pretty Tom Sawyer”’ filled with horseriding, building rafts and fishing.
I was, however, far from Idyllic. By the age od 14, his family had moved 37 times, living everywhere from Magnetic Island to Byron Bay. It set the scene for his future nomadic life.
The young boy was home schooled, sporadically educated by university professors and even taught himself in hours spent alone in council libraries.
But his life changed when his mother’s abusive boyfriend tried to gain custody of Assange’s half brother in order to submit him to religious sect The Family.
His mother and her young family “disappeared”, constantly moving, never leaving a trail.
But at the age of 16, in 1987, Assange got a computer and modem and his life was suddenly transformed.
He embraced the random problem-solving and solace if life as a computer hacker.
“We were bright sensitive kinds who didn’t fit the dominant subculture and fiercely castigated those who did as irredeemable boneheads,” he wrote of himself and a teenage friend.
He was arrested in the early 1990’sw for hacking into the computer system of a major Canadian telecommunications company, but avoided a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
A brief spell in hospital for depression soon followed, as well as time spent living rough in the Dandenong Ranges National Park in Victoria and a stint motorcycling across Vietnam.
While working towards a physics degree at the University of Melbourne in 2006, He founded WikiLeaks.
It was a site for anyone wishing to “reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations” he wrote at the time of the site’s launch.
“ I am the one who9 takes that risk,” he said prophetically, explaining his role at WikiLeaks while addressing the Frontline club last monthly. “As a consequence, I also get a lot of undue credit. I also get all the criticism.”
His original WikiLeaks mandate was to9 “make the news, not be the news”.
But that seems to have backfired, with Assange now a household name around the world.
“Is is weird?” an audience member asked him of his new celebrity status.
“No,” Assange shrugged.” Actually, I find it quite boring.”
Lucy Marne is The Courier-Mail’s European correspondent

Dear Friend,

Sarah Palin wants Julian Assange hunted as a terrorist.1 She's among a swelling chorus of American politicians calling for the arrest - and even the death - of the Australian citizen who runs WikiLeaks. It's a shame that real terrorists, the kind we should be focusing our attention on, don't show up at British Police stations with their lawyers, as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange did yesterday.

Here in Australia, Prime Minister Gillard pre-emptively judged Mr. Assange "illegal," even as the Attorney General confirmed that no Australian nor international crime by WikiLeaks has been identified.2

The death penalty? Judgment before trial? This isn't the kind of justice system we have in Australia. If our Government won't stand up for the rights of Australian citizens, let's do it ourselves.

We're printing ads in The Washington Times and The New York Times with the statement our Government should have made, signed by as many Australians as possible. Will you add your name to the signatories, and invite your friends to join too?

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/Wikileaks

The statement:Dear President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder:

We, as Australians, condemn calls for violence, including assassination, against Australian citizen and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, or for him to be labeled a terrorist, enemy combatant or be treated outside the ordinary course of justice in any way.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "information is the currency of democracy."3 Publishing leaked information in collaboration with major news outlets, as Wikileaks and Mr. Assange have done, is not a terrorist act.

Australia and the United States are the strongest of allies. Our soldiers serve side by side and we've experienced, and condemned, the consequences of terrorism together. To label WikiLeaks a terrorist organisation is an insult to those Australians and Americans who have lost their lives to acts of terrorism and to terrorist forces.

If WikiLeaks or their staff have broken international or national laws, let that case be heard in a just and fair court of law. At the moment, no such charges have been brought.

We are writing as Australians to say what our Government should have said: that all Australian citizens deserve to be free from persecution, threats of violence and detention without charge, especially from our friend and ally, the United States.

We call upon you to stand up for our shared democratic principles of the presumption of innocence and freedom of information.We're printing this statement in The Washington Times and The New York Times early next week - and the more Australians sign, the more powerful the message will be. Please add your name by clicking below, and forward this message to friends and family:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/WikiLeaks

What has started with WikiLeaks being branded as terrorists won't end there.

In fact, just yesterday U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, Chair of the Senate's Homeland Security Committee, said thatThe New York Times should also be investigated under the U.S. Espionage Act for publishing a number of the diplomatic cables leaked to WikiLeaks.4 We can help stop such plans in their tracks, by showing how they are affecting the image of the US in the eyes of their staunchest friends and allies.

Click here to sign the statement before it's published in The New York Times and Washington Times.

Thanks for being part of this,
The GetUp team

---

1 Beckford, M., 'Sarah Palin: hunt WikiLeaks founder like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders', The Telegraph, 30 November 2010.

2 Oakes, L., 'Oakes: Gillard gushes over US leaks', Perth Now, 4 December 2010.

3 The quote is widely attributed to Jefferson, but some now dispute whether he actually said it. We know, at least, that he said "knowledge is power," even if Francis Bacon did say it first.

4 Savage, C., 'U.S. prosecuters study WikiLeaks prosecution', The New York Times, 7 December 2010.

Julian Assange from Jail to Masion






Former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. Photo: Jacky Ghossein

 \

Assange gets bail but still locked up (01:12)
British judge grants bail to WikiLeaks founder under strict monitoring conditions, but he remains in jail as Sweden appeals the ruling.

Assange will never receive a fair trial: Hicks
Cameron Atfield
December 15, 2010

Hicks answers the tough questions
Former terrorism suspect David Hicks has come out in support of jailed freedom-of-speech campaigner Julian Assange, saying he feared for Mr Assange's safety should he end up in American hands.
Mr Assange, the founder of the WikiLeaks website, has been returned to London's notorious Wandsworth prison despite winning bail from a British Court.
He will be held there for another 48 hours while Swedish prosecutors, who want to extradite him to Sweden to face allegations of sex crimes, mount a High Court appeal against the decision.
Supporters of Mr Assange, including his lawyer, have claimed the charges are politically motivated after the release of thousands of secret diplomatic cables, causing embarrassment for several governments.
Yesterday, Mr Hicks told Fairfax Radio he was concerned about what might happen to Mr Assange if he was extradited to the United States.
"He will never receive a fair trial," he said.
"We have already established that it's a political decision rather than a legal one. It's important that our governments are held to account for any war crimes they may be involved in and that is why the work of WikiLeaks is so important."
Mr Hicks spent six years at Guantanamo Bay, the US-run prison camp in Cuba, before he returned home to Australia to serve nine months at Adelaide's Yatala jail.
He was convicted by a US military commission of "providing material support for terrorism".
Mr Hicks said he believed future WikiLeaks releases could contain information about his incarceration.
"I will watch with interest in more leaks released because I have heard that they might contain information about my treatment in Guantanamo and the political interference in my case," he said.
"I just hope the Australian government doesn't abandon him like they did to me."
WikiLeaks: Julian Assange sex assault court case branded a 'show trial'
The Swedish authorities are turning the sexual assault case against Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, into a "show trial", his lawyers claimed.

Mark Stephens attacked the decision by the Swedish authorities to appeal against a judge's ruling to grant the 39 year-old Australian bail.
He said their decision was now a "'persecution" rather than a prosecution and was politically motivated.
He accused the authorities of stopping at nothing to have the Wikileaks founder behind bars, a claim they denied.

 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is refused bail
15 Dec 2010
WikiLeaks: summary of the latest disclosures
15 Dec 2010
Julian Assange: is 'Wikileaker' on a crusade or an ego trip?
15 Dec 2010
Julian Assange: Jemima Khan comes to aid of Wikileaks founder in Swedish extradition fight
15 Dec 2010
Julian Assange: 'don't shoot the messenger'
15 Dec 2010

Julian Assange: 'don't shoot the messenger'
Governments around the world must not "shoot the messenger" by attacking disclosures by WikiLeaks, Julian Assange said on Tuesday.
Julian Assange says his whistle-blowing website deserves protection and has not cost a single life despite the claims of critics

The former computer hacker said his whistle-blowing website deserves protection and has not cost a single life despite the claims of critics.
Writing for The Australian newspaper, Mr Assange quoted its founder, Rupert Murdoch, as once saying the truth will inevitably win over secrecy.
He said: "Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public."
Mr Assange said WikiLeaks has coined "scientific journalism" that allows readers to study the original evidence for themselves.
He added: "Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest.
"WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption."
The campaigner denied he is anti-war, but said Governments must tell the truth about their reasons for fighting.
He claimed the United States, supported by its "acolytes", has attacked WikiLeaks instead of other media groups because it is "young and small".
Branding the website "underdogs", he accused Australia Prime Minister Julia Gillard of "disgraceful pandering" to the Americans.
He said: "The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings."
Mr Assange highlighted some of the most high-profile revelations made by his website over the last week.
He added: "The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth."

In news
  
The WikiLeaks bunker
  
WikiLeaks: 10 greatest scoops
  
WikiLeaks: do they have a right to privacy?
  
The key WikiLeaks revelations
  
Why law is powerless to stop WikiLeaks

 

WikiLeaks 'will continue releasing documents'
15 Dec 2010

 
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is driven into Westminster Magistrates Court in London Photo: Stefan Rousseau/PA
WikiLeaks 'will continue releasing documents'
WikiLeaks has pledged to continue releasing confidential documents after Julian Assange, the website's founder and chief, arrived at court for an extradition hearing.
Wednesday 15 December 2010

Richard Edwards and Nick Collins 2:53PM GMT 07 Dec 2010
Mr Assange handed himself over to police in central London on Tuesday morning after a warrant was issued for his arrest on rape charges.
But ahead of his first court appearance a spokesman for the website insisted the arrest would not prevent the planned release of further cables on Tuesday evening.
The spokesman wrote on Twitter: "Today's actions against our editor-in-chief Julian Assange won't affect our operations: we will release more cables tonight as normal."

The 39-year-old Australian was due to appear before a district judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on Tuesday afternoon, where his lawyers were expected to fight extradition proceedings.
A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "Officers from the Metropolitan Police Extradition Unit have this morning arrested Julian Assange on behalf of the Swedish authorities on suspicion of rape.
"Assange is due to appear at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court today."
Supporters of Assange were told to protest against censorship outside the Horseferry Road court house on several websites.
His arrest came after an Australian newspaper published an editorial written by Assange, in which he urged governments around the world not to "shoot the messenger".
He wrote: "Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest."
He accused the Australian government and prime minister Julia Gillard of "disgraceful pandering" to the Americans, adding: "The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings."
Mr Assange has not been seen publicly for 31 days, since an appearance in Geneva, and was believed to have been in hiding in the south-east of England as the latest tranche of WikiLeaks material was released.
A European Arrest Warrant was issued by the Swedish last month but could not be acted upon because it did not contain sufficient information for the British authorities. A spokesman for Marianne Ny, the Swedish prosecutor, said the extra details were sent last week.
Police processed the warrant yesterday and arrangements were made with Mark Stephens, Mr Assange’s British lawyer, for the Wikileaks founder to attend a central London police station.
Mr Stephens said his client was keen to discover what allegations he was facing so he could clear his name.
"It's about time we got to the end of the day and we got some truth, justice and rule of law," he said.
"Julian Assange has been the one in hot pursuit to vindicate himself to clear his good name.
"He has been trying to meet with her (the Swedish prosecutor) to find out what the allegations are he has to face and also the evidence against him, which he still hasn't seen."
The 39-year-old Australian has been under intense pressure since the release of thousands of secret documents in recent weeks.
Kristinn Hrafnsson, spokesman for WikiLeaks, said Mr Assange had been forced to keep a low profile after several threats on his life.
Sweden’s Supreme Court upheld a court order to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of “rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion” after he appealed against two lower court rulings. He denies the allegations.
His details were also added to Interpol’s most wanted website, alerting police forces around the world.
Mr Stephens said he would fight any bid to extradite his client. He added that Mr Assange “has been trying to meet with the Swedish prosecutor since August this year”.
Mr Assange’s troubles deepened when his Swiss bank account was shut down after it was found he had given a false address. Postfinance, the financial arm of Swiss Post, said: “The Australian citizen provided false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process.”
Mr Assange had allegedly told Postfinance he lived in Geneva but could offer no proof that he was a Swiss resident.
News of his potential arrest came as WikiLeaks was criticised for publishing details of hundreds of sites around the world that could be targeted in terrorist attacks.
Among the British sites listed are a transatlantic undersea cable landing in Cornwall; naval and motoring engineering firm MacTaggart Scott, based in the small Scottish town of Loanhead; and BAE Systems sites, including one in Preston, Lancashire.
The revelations prompted Sir Peter Ricketts, David Cameron’s national security adviser, to order a review of computer security across all government departments.
Julian Assange: Jemima Khan comes to aid of Wikileaks founder in Swedish extradition fight
Jemima Khan appeared in court to lend her support to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange as he was put behind bars over sexual allegations originating from Sweden.
By Andrew Hough, and Caroline Gammell  07 Dec 2010

Khan, the socialite and charity worker, offered to provide a £20,000 surety to prevent the 39-year-old Australian from being remanded in custody in Britain over the claims.
Swedish officials want him extradited to answer questions over the alleged rape of one woman and molestation of another while he was in Stockholm this summer.
Mr Assange, who was also supported in court by film director Ken Loach and four others, has repeatedly denied the claims.

The 36-year-old former wife of Imran Khan said she would pay “whatever sum was required” to ensure he was granted bail.
However, a district judge at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court decided he was too much of risk as it emerged that there was no record him ever arriving in Britain.
During Tuesday's hearing he was accompanied by officials from the Australian High Commission after asking for consular assistance.
Outside court, Khan said: “I am not here to make any kind of judgement on the Julian Assange as an individual as I do not know him and I have never met him.
“I am here because I believe in the principle of the human right to freedom of information and our right to be told the truth.”
Mr Assange’s supporters believe his arrest is a political stunt to detract from the revelations being made on a daily basis on the Wikileaks website.
Geoffrey Robertson QC, a prominent Australian human rights barrister who was a defending lawyer at the Brighton Bombing trial in the mid 1980s, has reportedly agreed to act for Mr Assange in future hearings.
The former computer hacker claims he had received several death threats since the secret documents were published and that someone had called for the kidnap of his 20-year-old son in Australia.

Julian Assange in British prison on rape charge
08 Dec 2010
Julian Assange: Extradition case involving Wikileaks founder could last many months
08 Dec 2010
Julian Assange: question of consent
08 Dec 2010
Julian Assange: 'don't shoot the messenger'
07 Dec 2010
The Scarlet Pimpernel of cyberspace
07 Dec 2010
US Attorney General taking 'significant' action
07 Dec 2010

 

Julian Assange: is 'Wikileaker' on a crusade or an ego trip?
Julian Assange, the man who published the Afghan war files on his Wikileaks website, is unlikely to be chastened by Admiral Mike Mullen’s claims that he might now have “blood on his hands”.
Julian Assange outside court in Melbourne in 1995, where he was later convicted of hacking offences.

Julian Assange, pictured in London this week, relies on donations and the hospitality of wellwishers as he travels the globe.

WikiLeaks: summary of the latest disclosures
The latest round of WikiLeaks releases disclose more detail about the US's relationships with allies and foes across the globe. Here is a round-up of today’s headlines.

Britain
Prince Andrew criticised a variety of governments, including those of Britain and America, as corrupt, stupid and backward in a conversation with a US diplomat.
In his wave of “almost neuralgic patriotism”, the Duke also made the bizarre claim that British geography teachers are the best in the world.

Families of British servicemen killed in Sangin, Afghanistan have reacted furiously after it was claimed WikiLeaks would disclose dismissive remarks by US commanders on British efforts to secure the town.
The Welsh family of Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of handing the classified documents to WikiLeaks, have flown to America but been prevented from visiting him in prison.
The internet has been rife with speculation about which former Labour minister was labelled “a bit of a hound dog” with women by an American official.
David Cameron was seen as “lightweight” by Barack Obama after the first meeting between the two leaders, leaked files will show.
Prince Charles does not command the same respect as the Queen, according to a senior Commonwealth official.
International
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, dismissed claims that Arab countries had asked the US to attack his country as a deliberate attempt by the US to destabilise the Middle East.
Released Guantánamo Bay prisoners should have electronic tagging devices implanted so that they can be followed by security officials, the King of Saudi Arabia suggested to a White House official.
Silvio Berlusconi responded to leaked claims by American diplomats that he has a penchant for “wild parties” by claiming he only throws parties in a “proper, dignified and elegant way”.
One of the more unlikely stories to surface from the leaked documents was that of a 77-year-old American dentist who fled Iran on horseback after the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
American officials suspect that North Korea has been secretly aiding Iran in its attempts to build nuclear weapons under the auspices of the Chinese government.
Colonel Gaddafi was believed to be very close to a “voluptuous” Ukrainian nurse who followed him everywhere he went, a US cable claimed.
An exile from Iran was living in London when he was targeted in an assassination plot by an Iranian agent, who was later arrested in America.
Hillary Clinton asked US diplomats in Argentina about the mental health of President Cristina Kirchner and questioned whether she was using medication to help her “calm down”.
The White House has told federal agencies to tighten security around the US military computer network following the leaking of classified information.
China would support a unified Korea controlled from Seoul because it believes the North is behaving like a “spoiled child”, documents show.
Sarah Palin has accused Barack Obama of taking insufficient action to prevent the release of the latest batch of WikiLeaks files.
The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, could die within months from terminal cancer, an Iranian informant told American officials.
Angela Merkel is the only leader “man” enough to lead the European Union, according to American cables.
The United Nations has angrily hit back at American “interference” after learning that Hillary Clinton ordered what amounted to an espionage campaign on its senior officials.
Julian Assange
The WikiLeaks founder is in hiding after an international warrant was issued for his arrest on rape allegations.
Assange’s next target will be the banking sector, with one American bank in particular to suffer from his next revelations, which he compared to the Enron scandal.
Assange has accused Barack Obama of attempting to smother the freedom of the press.
A criminal investigation is underway into how the latest batch of documents was made public, and Barack Obama could take legal action against Mr Assange.

Kazakh defence minister 'was openly drunk'
01 Dec 2010
WikiLeaks: Best quotes from Duke of York's Kyrgyzstan breakfast with US ambassador
30 Nov 2010
WikiLeaks: bereaved families' fury at US 'insult' over Afghanistan
30 Nov 2010
WikiLeaks: British and US governments stupid, says Prince Andrew
30 Nov 2010
WikiLeaks: Criminal investigation underway into leak of classified diplomatic documents
30 Nov 2010
WikiLeaks: Hillary Clinton states WikiLeaks release is "an attack"
30 Nov 2010

U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks release: March 15, 2010

keywords: WikiLeaks, U.S. intelligence, U.S. Army, National Ground Intelligence Center, NGIC, classi?ed, SECRET, NOFORN

restraint: Classi?ed SECRET/NOFORN (US)

“Julian Assange is a former computer hacker convicted by the Australian government for hacking into US government and DoD computer networks in 1997. Julian Assange is widely known for his support for open government initiatives, leftist ideology, anti-US views, and opposition to the Global War on Terrorism…..”

 

title: Wikileaks.org - An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?

date: March 18, 2008

group: United States Army Counterintelligence Center, Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch; Department of Defence Intelligence Analysis Program

author: Michael D. Horvath

link: http://wikileaks.org/?le/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

pages: 32

Description

By Julian Assange (julian@wikileaks.org)

This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.

“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing sensitive or classi?ed information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize nthe organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends “The identi?cation, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site”.

[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan was ine?ective]. As an odd justi?caton for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website”.

The report provides further justi?cation by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks

 

(U) Wikileaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign

Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?

NGIC-2381-0617-08

Information Cutoff Date: 28 February 2008

Publication Date: 18 March 2008

National Security Information

Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions

Derived from: Multiple sources

Declassify on: Source documents marked 25X1

Date of source: 20060725

This Counterintelligence Analysis Report is published under the auspices of the Department of

Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP).

Prepared by:

Michael D. Horvath

Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch

Army Counterintelligence Center

External Coordination: National Ground Intelligence Center[1]

This product responds to HQ, Department of Army, production requirement C764-97-0005.

ACIC Product Identification Number is RB08-0617.

[Back to Table of Contents]

(U) Purpose

(U) This special report assesses the counterintelligence threat posed to the US Army by the

Wikileaks.org Web site

(U) Executive Summary

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force

protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security

(INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US

Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to

DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified

DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by

a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or

organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet. Such information could be of

value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign

insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against

US force, both within the United States and abroad.

(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US

government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot

be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ?leakers? or ?whistleblowers? of sensitive or

classified DoD documents are former US government employees. These claims are highly

suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or

whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and

providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory

information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect

the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information. On the other hand, one

cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be

inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with

limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.

(U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal

behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, the

former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the

Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or

whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other

information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations. The

developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign

government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic,

oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2]

(S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial

review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons

accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information

posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org

Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,

and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to

convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3

 

(U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government

and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other

countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of

information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and

open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs

any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business

information. Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face

legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified

government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false,

slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature. For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the

United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing

of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax

evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against

Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site

was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and

organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows

the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front

organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4]

(S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and

several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have

the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted

they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious

content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to

remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting

of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these

countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5]

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and

whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the

Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of

employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers

could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make

such information public.

[Back to Table of Contents]

(U) Key Judgments

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence,

OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.

(S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide

FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially

actionable information for targeting US forces.

(S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the

US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot

be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees

leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since

Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its

primary goals.

(U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,

misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception

management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to

specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.

(U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and

claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers

or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information,

propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.

(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information

in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.

(U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting

the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification,

exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current

or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this

center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the

Wikileaks.org Web site.

(U) Table of Contents

(U) Purpose

(U) Executive Summary

(U) Key Judgments

(U) Background

(U) Discussion

(U) Intelligence Gaps

(U) Conclusions

(U) Point of Contact

(U) References

(U) Appendix A: Glossary

(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis of Leaked Tables of

Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan

(U) Tables

(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216) Table of

Equipment (TOE)

(U) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by Wikileaks.org for

the NGIC Report Entitled ?(U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004?

[NGIC-1127-7138-06] posted on its Web site

 

(U) Figures

(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser

(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ?(U) Complex

Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004? As Published in a Wikileaks.org Article.

[Back to Table of Contents]

(U) Background

(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and

technologists from the United States, China, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Its

Web site became operational in early 2007. The advisory board for Wikileaks.org includes

journalists, cryptographers, a ?former US intelligence analyst,? and expatriates from Chinese,

Russian, and Tibetan refugee communities. The ACIC does not have any information to

associate or link the ?former US intelligence analyst? on the Wikileaks.org advisory board with

the leakage of sensitive or classified DoD documents posted to the Web site.[6]

(U) Wikileaks.org claims to have developed an uncensorable version of the publicly available

Wikipedia interface that is intended for mass leakage of sensitive documents that expose

wrongdoing and for allowing users to comment on the documents posted to the Web site.

Through its Web site, Wikileaks.org encourages large-scale anonymous leaking and posting of

sensitive and confidential government and business documents on the Internet. Wikileaks.org

claims to have received more than 1.2 million documents from dissident communities and

anonymous sources throughout the world. If true, additional articles involving sensitive or

classified DoD will most likely be posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site in the future.[7]

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses its own coded software combined with Wiki, MediaWiki, OpenSSL,

FreeNet, TOR, and PGP to make it difficult for foreign governments, FISS, law enforcement

agencies, and foreign businesses to determine where a leaked document originated from and who

was responsible for leaking the document. The goal of Wikileaks.org is to ensure that leaked

information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations, and individual users because

once a leaked document is placed on the Internet it is extremely difficult to remove the document

entirely.[8]

(S//NF) The obscurification technology[9] used by Wikileaks.org has exploitable vulnerabilities.

Organizations with properly trained cyber technicians, the proper equipment, and the proper

technical software could most likely conduct computer network exploitation (CNE) operations or

use cyber tradecraft to obtain access to Wikileaks.org‘s Web site, information systems, or

networks that may assist in identifying those persons supplying the data and the means by which

they transmitted the data to Wikileaks.org. Forensic analysis of DoD unclassified and classified

networks may reveal the location of the information systems used to download the leaked

documents. The metadata, MD5 hash marks, and other unique identifying information within

digital documents may assist in identifying the parties responsible for leaking the information. In

 

addition, patterns involving the types of leaked information, classification levels of the leaked

information, development of psychological profiles, and inadvertent attribution of an insider

through poor OPSEC could also assist in the identification of insiders.

(U) Wikileaks.org supports the US Supreme Court ruling regarding the unauthorized release of

the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, which stated that ?only a free and unrestrained press can

effectively expose deception in government.? The Wikileaks.org Web site further states the

following:

?We aim for maximum political impact. We believe that transparency in

government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government, and

stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the

world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires

information. Historically that information has been costly—in terms of human life

and human rights. But with technological advances—the Internet, and

cryptography—the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.?[10]

(U) The OPSEC measures used in the submission of leaked information to Wikileaks using the

Internet are designed to protect the identity and personal security of the persons or entities

sending or posting information to the Web site. Wikileaks.org claims that any attempt at trace

routing of IP addresses, MAC addresses, and other identifying information of a home computer

submissions (as opposed to cyber café submissions) through Wikileaks.org‘s Internet submission

system would require a knowledge of information available only to Wikileaks.org programmers

and to a rights organization serving the electronic community, or would require specialized

ubiquitous traffic analysis of Internet messages and routing systems. Nevertheless, it remains

technically feasible for FISS, law enforcement organizations, and foreign businesses that have

the motivation, intentions, capability, and opportunity to gain online access or physical access to

Wikileaks.org information systems to identify and trace whistleblowers through cyber

investigations, advanced cyber tools, and forensics.[11]

(U) Another method of posting leaked information to the Web site anonymously is for leakers to

use postal mail to send the information to volunteers in various countries who have agreed to

receive encrypted CDs and DVDs from leakers. These volunteers then forward the information

to designated personnel, who then upload the data on the CDs and DVDs to the Wikileaks.org

Web servers. To protect or mask the sender, leakers can take OPSEC measures such as using

Wikileaks.org encryption protocols when writing CDs and DVDs; using gloves while wrapping,

taping, handling, and mailing packages; and not including a return address or including a fake

return address on packages containing leaked information. Such measures are designed to protect

the identity of the leakers and prevent FISS, law enforcement, and postal inspectors from

intercepting the mail and decoding the information on the data storage devices in transit.

Wikileaks.org also claims that it is developing easy-to-use software to encrypt the CDs and

DVDs. Use of such methods also protects facilitators or intermediaries from harm because they

would not know the content of the encrypted submissions.[12]

(U) A Wikileaks.org spokesperson stated in early January 2007 that about 22 persons are

involved in the Open Society Initiative to make governments and corporations more accountable

 

to the citizens of the world. Wikileaks intends to seek funding from individual persons and

groups such as humanitarian organizations that fund sociopolitical activity intended to promote

democracy and human rights around the world through open access to government and business

information.[13]

(S//NF) Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and

Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site to prevent citizens

or adversaries from accessing sensitive information, embarrassing information, or alleged

propaganda. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia have asserted that they have a right to

remove from the Internet protected government information, disinformation, and propaganda that

is intended to embarrass or make false allegations against their governments. China, Israel, North

Korea, and Russia are assessed to have state-sponsored CNE, computer network attack (CNA),

and cyber forensics capabilities that would most likely allow penetration or disrupt viewing of

the Wikileaks.org Web site. China, Israel, and Russia have used or are suspected of having used

CNA to target terrorist or dissident Web sites that have posted objectionable material intended to

embarrass, harm, or encourage terrorism or opposition to the government.[14]

[Back to Table of Contents]

(U) Discussion

(U//FOUO) An insider could present a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, or

INFOSEC threat to the US Army through deliberate unauthorized release of official DoD

documents and posting of sensitive or classified information to the Internet. Several recent

postings to the Wikileaks.org Web site in November 2007 of sensitive US Army information

marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and in December 2007 of US Army

information classified SECRET//NOFORN highlight the insider threat to DoD. The actual

perpetrators responsible for the unauthorized released of such documents could be subject to

administrative action, nonjudicial punishment, or criminal charges and prosecution if they are

identified.

(U) Wikileaks.org Analysis of US Army Tables of Equipment in Iraq and

Afghanistan from April 2007

(U) Wikileaks.org specifically cited 2,000 pages of leaked US Army documents with information

on the Tables of Equipment (TOEs) for US and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as a

perfect example of the sort of information that would benefit from a global analysis. These

documents provided information on the US forces, a description of equipment and total number

of equipment that were assigned to actual military units assigned to US Central Command in

April 2007. Wikileaks.org staff members and various authors and contributors have written

numerous news articles and posted the raw data in spreadsheets or Structured Query Language

(SQL) data base so anyone can examine the information, conduct research, comment upon,

discuss the various units, see the items of equipment, see what they do, and draw their own

conclusions about the strategic, political, military, and human rights significance of the

information.[15}

 

(U//FOUO) Table 1 below is an abbreviated sample of information contained in a leaked digital

database document or spreadsheets available on the Wikileaks.org Web site:

[Back to Table of Contents]

(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216)

Table of Equipment (TOE). [16]

UIC  LIN  NSN  Item Name  PBIC Type DND Qnty

M94216 72045Z 581001X111125 WARLOCK GREEN, ECM:

GREEN EDO CO

V TPE N 15

M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED

EDO COMM &

T TPE N 2

M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED

EDO COMM &

V TPE N 13

M94216 B67766 1.24001E+12 BINOCULA MOD CN M22 N TPE N 9

M94216 E63317 6.60501E+12 COMPAS MAGNETIC UNMTD P TPE N 3

M94216 J03261 5.85501E+12 ILLUMI INFR AN/PEQ-2A P TPE N 6

M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 4

M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49

M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 8

M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49

M94216 L91975 1.005E+12 MG 50 M2 HB FL GD/VEH P TPE N 3

M94216 L92352 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240 N TPE N 2

M94216 M09009 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 5.56MM M249 P TPE N 3

M94216 M74823 1.01001E+12 MT MACH GUN MK64 MOD9 T TPE N 1

M94216 M75577 1.005E+12 MT TPD MG CAL .50 M3 P TPE N 1

M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B N TPE N 2

M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B T TPE N 2

M94216 N05482 5.85501E+12 NIGHT VIS G AN/PVS-7B P TPE N 8

M94216 T92446 2.32001E+12 TRK UTIL HMMWV M1114 T TPE N 1

M94216 W95537 2.33001E+12 TRL CGO 3/4T M101 2WH T TPE N 3

M94216 YF2014 232001C043031 HMMWV M1114: W/ OFK5 T TPE N 2

M94216 YF2049 2.32001E+12 TRUCK,UTILITY-(M1116) T TPE N 1

Legend

 

UIC – Unit Identification Code, a six-character, alphanumeric code that uniquely identifies each

Active, Reserve, and National Guard unit of the US Armed Forces.

LIN – Line Item Number for equipment.

NSN – NATO Stock Number, a standardized stack identification number for supplies and

equipment within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

Item Name - Brief description of the equipment.

PBIC – Property Book Identification Code, which categorizes the type of property listed into one

of 10 categories.

Type (of equipment):

TPE – Theater Provided Equipment; specific equipment that is provided by the

Theater of Operations such as CENTCOM to perform the mission based on the

unique operating environment

LTT – Long Term Training; equipment need for long term training or

deployment.

APS – Army Prepositioned Stock; equipment drawn by a unit that is already

prepositioned in the Theater of Operations.

DND – Do Not Deploy; this field is a Yes/No column that lists equipment that remains at the

home station and is not deployed with the unit when sent overseas.

OH Qty – On-hand Quantity is the number of item of equipment that is currently available to the

unit; it does not necessarily represent the actual required number needed by the unit to be fully

mission capable.[17}

 

(S//NF) The foreign staff writer for Wikileaks.org, Julian Assange, wrote several news articles,

coauthored other articles, and developed an interactive data base for the leaked documents. In

addition, other Wikileaks.org writers and various writers for other media publications wrote

separate news articles based on the leaked information posted to the Web site. Assange and his

coauthors claim that the 2,000 pages of leaked US military information provides unit names,

organizational structure, and tables of equipment (TOEs) for the US Army in Iraq and

Afghanistan. They also claimed that unidentified persons within the US government leaked the

information to facilitate action by the US Congress to force the withdrawal of US troops by

cutting off funding for the war.[18]

(U//FOUO) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers purport that the leaked sensitive TOE

information reveals the following

 

Secretive US document exploitation centers.

Detainee operations and alleged human rights violations.

Information on the US State Department, US Air Force, US Navy and US Marines units,

Iraqi police and coalition forces from Poland, Denmark, Ukraine, Latvia, Slovakia,

Romania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and El Salvador serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nearly the entire order of battle for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as of April 2007.

Alleged revelations that the US government violated the Chemical Weapons Convention

in Iraq and Afghanistan.[19]

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org encouraged persons to comment on the leaked Army documents and

explained how the catalogued information and cross-referenced databases could be used by other

researchers or journalists to prepare reports or assessments. According to Wikileaks.org, the

information posted can be used to prepare objective new reports. Conversely, this same

information could be manipulated to prepare biased news reports or be used for conducting

propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, perception management, or influence operations

against the US Army by a variety of domestic and foreign actors. [20]

(U) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers developed and applied a specific methodology for

examining and analyzing the leaked TOE information, a methodology they then placed online to

assist others in conducting their own research. See Appendix B. They also provided links to

associated online reference material. The methodology used by Assange and other authors for the

analysis of leaked tables of equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan both a SQLite

database is described in Appendix B.

(S//NF) The TOEs for US Army units deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq in April 2007 provide a

wealth of information that could be used by FISS, foreign terrorist groups, and Iraqi insurgents to

identify unit capabilities and vulnerabilities that could assist in conducting attacks against camps,

convoys, and other targets. The information can also be compared with other publicly available

databases to develop extensive order of battle files of vehicle types, communications and

jamming equipment, information systems, and weapons systems, files that could be used to

determine the capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities of the organic equipment assigned to

military units. Such information could aid enemy forces in planning terrorist attacks, selecting

the most effective type and emplacement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), building

triggering devices to defeat countermeasures organic to friendly units, and selecting the most

effective direct and indirect weapons systems for conducting physical attacks against targets such

as military units, convoys, and base camps.

(U) One Wikileaks.org news article also discusses the use of IEDs by foreign terrorists and

insurgent groups and claims that the IED threat has resulted in a shift in DoD funding priorities,

similar to the Manhattan Project to develop atomic weapons in World War II, for current

research, development and fielding of IED countermeasures through the Joint IED Defeat

Organization. In addition, the author of the article attempts to provide a cost-to-benefit analysis

of these IED tactics and countermeasures. The author claims that the leaked information reveals

that 12,097 Warlock, Counter RCIED (Remote-controlled Improvised Explosive Device)

Electronic Warfare (CREW), systems are in Iraq and that the purpose of the Warlock is to jam

radio signals from devices such as mobile phones to prevent such signals from detonating IEDs.

 

The author claimed that 7,530 systems used in Iraq were purchased at a cost of $1.1 billion. No

claim was made regarding the cost of remaining 4,567 systems.

(S//NF) The author of the above-mentioned article incorrectly interprets the leaked data

regarding the components and fielding of the Warlock system, resulting in unsupportable and

faulty conclusions to allege war profiteering, price gouging and increased revenues by DoD

contractors involved in counter-IED development efforts. This article provides an example of

how the leaked TOE information can be manipulated and misinterpreted to produce inaccurate

information for a news article.

(S//NF) The author of the article then argues that the US Army receives a poor return on its

investment in counter-IEDs. The following excerpt from the article could be used by adversaries

in potential propaganda or influence operations:

If we view IEDs as a rebel investment, to which the United States must pay

dividends in defensive equipment costs, then every insurgent dollar spent has a

return on investment of somewhere around a thousand fold. Significant price

gouging by counter-IED defense contractors is evident. For comparison, each

briefcase-sized ?Warlock? IED jammer, of which is there is on average more than

one per vehicle, is worth $150,000; however, as can be seen by this analysis that

is more costly than nearly every vehicle it was designed to protect. The

?Warlock? producer, a DoD defense contractor [name redacted], predicts

financial year 2007 will see a 400 percent total revenue increase over its 2003

levels.[21]

(S//NF) Intelligence indicates that insurgents in Afghanistan have recovered several Warlock

systems.[22] It is possible that Warlock systems captured in Afghanistan were sent to Iran for

reverse engineering and for use in developing countermeasures to Warlock.

(S//NF) Were a Warlock system successfully reversed engineered or countermeasures

successfully developed by foreign terrorists, insurgents, or the Iranian government, US and

Coalition forces would be at greater risk of RCIED attacks, especially those units equipped with

Warlock systems similar to those that had been captured and exploited. It is also possible that

any countermeasures developed to defeat the Warlock system would be provided to the Jaysh alMahdi (JAM) and other anti-US insurgent or terrorist groups operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The TOEs could be used to identify and target specific units equipped with the same type of

Warlock systems for which countermeasures had been developed.

(U) The Wikileaks.org authors believe that the leaked documents list Army equipment held by

the US Army, Marines, Air Force, Coalition, and possibly CIA units in Iraq and Afghanistan as

of April 2007. The authors stated that the data only includes items registered with battle planning

systems for logistics and appears to cover most valuable major end items of equipment. The data,

according to the authors, does not include soldiers‘ combat pay, transportation, research and

development, and home station costs of the soldiers, nor does it include most supplies,

ammunition, and other disposable equipment and consumable items.[23}

 

(U) Wikileaks.org staff personnel allegedly wrote a script or computer program to cross

reference each item in the leaked document with NSNs gleaned from public US logistics

equipment price catalogs from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The authors claim that

$1.112 billion worth of US Army-managed military equipment in Afghanistan is listed in the

leaked documents. The author believed the actual total value of the equipment to be several times

higher.[24]

(U) The spreadsheets and list contains codes to identify military units, supply item codes, and

other logistics data. The authors believed that the most useful data field for investigatory

purposes was the NSN. The authors found several Internet sites that allow public searches of the

NSNs, and this information was merged with the TOE into the SQL-generated database on the

Web site. For example, the author specifically mentioned NSN catalogues that are publicly

available on the Internet from the DLA.[25] The DLA Web site identifies many items on the

spreadsheets and includes prices that were merged into the database and used to generate the

estimate for the total value of the equipment.[26]

(U//FOUO) Julian Assange also stated in his news articles involving the TOE information that

persons were welcome to assist in the following future actions and areas of research involving

the equipment listings:

A computer program would be written to expand the military unit abbreviations (for

example, HHC—Headquarters and Headquarters Company) to make is easier for users to

visually analyze entries in the database.

Make further comments on military units in the list and their significance. The entries

would be cross linked with available news sources.

Make further comments on equipment items in the list and their significance.

Expand and improve links and other information for US war-funding legislation and bills.

Attempt to answer questions on specific issues with NSN codes. The authors stated that

the NSNs are a 13-digit code. Of those 13 digits, 12 are numeric. The seventh is

alphanumeric, and the publicly searchable NSN database seems to be able to locate items

if they have a number in the seventh place, but, not if there is a letter in the seventh place.

They ask the following questions: 1) What is the significance for this alphanumeric

character in the seventh position? 2) What does a letter as opposed to a number signify?

3) Is there a more complete public database for NSN codes than the one given? 4) Are

these alphanumeric NSNs Management Control Numbers as speculated?

Create an interactive database browser.[27]

(U) Julian Assange and other Wikileaks.org authors continually encourage other persons with an

interest in the information to comment on their work or conduct their own research and publish

the results on Wikileaks.org.

(U) Alleged Violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty by US

Military in Iraq and Afghanistan

(U) On 9 November 2007, Wikileaks.org published an exclusive investigative report claiming

that the United States ?”had almost certainly violated the Chemical Weapons Convention?”

 

(CWC), as originally drafted by the United Kingdom in 1997. The author, Julian Assange,

claimed the deployment of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile also called Chlorobenzylidene

Malononitrile) munitions and dispensing equipment and weapons capable of firing CS gas by the

United States was a violation of the CWC. The author also claimed the United States had at least

2,386 low-grade chemical weapons deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. These items also appeared

in the 2,000-page listing of nearly one million items of US military equipment deployed in Iraq

and leaked to Wikileaks.org. The items are labeled under the military‘s own NATO supply

classification for chemical weapons and equipment.[28]

(U) Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Defense Department released an official statement

that President Bush had authorized US military forces to use riot control agents (RCAs) such as

tear gas or CS gas. See Figure 1. The Defense Department stated that tear gas or CS gas, which

was issued to US troops, would be used only to save civilian lives and in accordance with the

CWC, as amended and ratified by the United States. Some chemical weapons experts in the

United States and other countries expressed the belief that this 2003 authorization might violate

the CWC treaty. These domestic and foreign critics expressed the belief that any battlefield use

of tear gas would violate the CWC; offend crucial allies, including the United Kingdom and

Australia. In addition, the critics claimed that the usage of CS would provide the Iraqi leader,

Saddam Hussein, a pretext for using chemical weapons against the United States and coalition

forces.[29]

UNCLASSIFIED

(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser.

[Back to Table of Contents]

(U//FOUO) In the report published on Wikileaks.org, the author claimed that any use of

chemical weapons such as CS gas for military operations is illegal. The Chemical Weapons

Convention of 1997, drafted by the United Kingdom declares ?Each State Party undertakes not

to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.? It only grants permissible use to ?law

 

enforcement including domestic riot control.? The authors used this interpretation of the CWC

drafted by the United Kingdom to make the allegation that the United States had violated the

treaty. [30]

(U//FOUO) It must be noted, that US policy as stated in Executive Order No. 11850, 8 April

1975, Renunciation of Certain Uses in War of Chemical Herbicides and Riot Control Agents,

renounced first use of herbicides in war (except for specified defensive uses) and first use of

RCAs in war except for defensive military modes to save lives. In ratifying the CWC, the US

Senate wrote an amendment into its resolution approving the CWC that stated United States‘

interpretation of how RCAs might be used for specific defensive purposes, as specified by the

1975 Executive Order.[31]

(U) Such varying interpretations reflect a deliberate ambiguity in the CWC, which states that

?riot-control agents may not be used as a method of warfare.? The original CWC and modified

CWC approved by the US Senate, however, does not define this phrase ?method of warfare.?

The actual version of the CWC passed by the US Senate was not considered by the authors of the

report. The CWC ratified by the US Senate list exceptions in the usage of RCAs for US military

forces that are not considered by the US government to be in violation of the CWC.[32]

(U) In the same report, the authors claimed that the use of white phosphorus by the US military

during the 2004 assault on Fallujah, Iraq, should also be considered a violation of the CWC. The

authors noted, however, that the US Army claimed usage of white phosphorous as ?a smoke

screen? and ?an incendiary? in the Fallujah operation, and that this usage is not technically

covered by the CWC.

(U) Alleged Human Rights Violations Related to Joint Task Force–Guantanamo

Standard Operating Procedures

(U//FOUO) Another example of leaked information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site on or

about 7 November 2007 is an outdated copy of the Joint Task Force–Guantanamo, Camp Delta

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) marked as UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO, signed by MG

Miller and dated 28 March 2003. A news article written by Wikileaks.org staff writers, also

posted on 7 November 2007, claims the SOP exposes systematic methods for preventing illegal

combatants and detained prisoners incarcerated at Joint Task Force–Guantanamo facilities at

Camp Delta from meeting with the International Red Cross, as well as the use of extreme

psychological stress as a means of torture against detainees. The unauthorized release of the SOP

has prompted authors posting to the Wikileaks.org Web site to claim that the document proves

the US Army was torturing and violating the human rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

This SOP was also the subject of a lawsuit by international human rights groups and a domestic

civil rights organization requesting the release of the document under the US Freedom of

Information Act.[33]

(U) The author claimed that subsequent US military statements including a DoD spokesperson,

to Reuters News Service and the Miami Herald confirm the veracity of the JTF SOP document.

On Wednesday, 14 November 2007, a week after the SOP was posted to Web site, Wikileaks.org

claimed that it received an e-mail message from the ?Pentagon? (DoD) demanding that the

 

documents posted to the Web site be censored and removed from the Web site. The actual

wording of the DoD e-mail message sent to Wikileaks.org requested that the document be

removed from the Web site and that the procedures under the Freedom of Information Act be

used to request release of the SOP.[34]

(U) Leakage of Classified Information to Wikileaks.org

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org also posted a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC),

classified SECRET//NOFORN, entitled ? (U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April

2004,” (NGIC-1127-7138-06). The NGIC report was the second in a series of reports that

analyzed recent warfare in complex environments such as urban environments. See Figure 2.

The NGIC report discusses enemy use of asymmetric tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP)

during the Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 and offers many useful lessons learned regarding how

a relatively weak adversary can prevent the United States from accomplishing its military

objectives. Wikileaks.org claims the document was leaked by a source it refers to as ?Peryton,?

who is described as a former employee of NGIC. Both a copy of the actual NGIC classified

report (in PDF) and the Wikileaks.org news article were posted on the Wikileaks.org Web site. A

variety of newspapers, wire services, and other news and media organizations wrote numerous

articles based on the original Wikileaks.org news article and actual classified document posted to

their Web site.[35]

(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole may exist within DoD or elsewhere in

the US government who is actively providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org

cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the claim that the leaker is a former NGIC employee is highly

suspect, since Wikileaks.org claims that the protection of the anonymity of the ?whistleblower?

or ?leaker? is one of its primary concerns. In addition, this claim could simply be a crude attempt

to mislead investigations into who leaked the document. Use of a code name, incorrect

employment information, or incorrect status are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures

designed to protect the identity of the current or former ?insider? who leaked the information. In

addition, usage of present and past verb tenses and other contradictions in referencing ?Peryton?

by the Wikileaks author and staff personnel are most likely part of a deliberate deception, but

one cannot completely rule out the possibility that some of these contradictions could be

inadvertent OPSEC errors made by authors lacking experience in protecting their methods or

sources.

(S//NF) Unclassified e-mail addresses and work telephone numbers of the authors and other

persons referenced in the NGIC report were listed in the NGIC document, thus making them

available to members of the news media attempting to verify the leaked information.

Wikileaks.org and some other news organizations did attempt to contact the NGIC personnel by

e-mail or telephone to verify the information. Such efforts by Wikileaks.org to verify the

information are in contravention to its stated policy not to attempt to verify the information it

receives from its sources. Wikileaks.org went forward with publishing their news article based

on the classified NGIC report although they did not receive a response to their inquiry. This is of

interest because some journalists exploit the lack of a response to their inquiries by implying that

a refusal to respond, failure to respond to a FOIA request, or failure to verify or receive other

information presumes that those failing to respond have something to hide. This further weaken

 

the claim that an alleged former NGIC employee leaked the information and strengthens other

possibilities. A former NGIC employee would be regarded by many as a highly credible source

and either taken at his or her word or asked to provide other bona fides to verify the employment

claim. Given the high visibility and publicity associated with publishing this classified report by

Wikileaks.org, however, attempts to verify the information were prudent and show journalist

responsibility to the newsworthiness or fair use of the classified document if they are

investigated or challenged in court.[36}

(U) The following is a description of the map and explanation of the classification markings

provided in the Wikileaks.org article: ?Map from page four of the leaked report on the failed 2004 assault on the Iraqi town of Fallujah, which is situated 40 miles from Baghdad. The report is classified SECRET/NOFORN. NOFORN means do not share with US allies such as the UK, Australia, and Canada. 20310603 is date after which 25 years have elapsed and the document would normally be declassified. X1 specifies that the document is exempt from declassification.

 

(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ?(U) Complex

Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004” As Published in a Wikileaks.org

Article.

[Back to Table of Contents]

(S//NF) The author on the Wikileaks.org staff published the article using selected excerpts and

used information that was out of context from the actual NGIC report. The article intertwined

classified information from the NGIC report and information gleaned from other news articles in

the open media to strengthen its portrayal of the coalition offensive operations in Fallujah in

2004 as a military and political defeat for the United States. The leakage of this NGIC report

could allow anti-Coalition forces to portray themselves as victors because they successfully

manipulated the media coverage in the April 2004 battle to divide the coalition forces politically

and force a halt to the offensive operations. The leaked report could also provide foreign

governments, terrorists, and insurgents with insight into successful asymmetric warfare tactics,

techniques, and procedures that could be used when engaging US or Coalition forces and provide

insight into effective media, information, or influence operations that could be used to defeat a

superior enemy.[37]

(U) The catalogue, indexing and filing entry on the Wikileaks.org Web site for the leaked NGIC

document is in Table 2, below. This is the information as posted on the Wikileaks.org Web site

 

(S//NF) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by

Wikileaks.org for the NGIC Report Entitled ?(U) Complex Environments: Battle

of Fallujah I, April 2004” [NGIC-1127-7138-06], as Posted on its Web Site.[38]

File fallujah.pdf (click to view file)

Analysis Al Jazeera and Abu Ghraib scuttled US war in Fallujah

Summary Classified 2006 SECRET//NOFORN report by the US Army National Ground

Intelligence Center. ?Enemy employment of asymmetric tactics, techniques,

and procedures (TTP) during the Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 offers many

useful lessons learned in how a relatively weak adversary can prevent the

United States from accomplishing its military objectives.

 

File Size 280144K

File Info PDF document, version 1.4

File Identity SHA256

28d7b0d27805749db32f38088c9ecbb963d4564877e723930cf44d8d0c6c7c8e

Wikileaks release 2007-12-24

Country United States

Organization US Army National Ground Intelligence Center

Organization

type

Military or intelligence (ruling)

Submitted by Peryton [ACIC comment: this is the code name given by Wikileaks.org to the

leaker(s) of the information.

 

(U) Technical Skills and Abilities

(S//NF) Wikileaks.org developers and technical personnel appear to demonstrate a high level of

sophistication in their efforts to provide a secure operating environment for whistleblowers

desiring to post information to the Web site. They currently use a variety of indigenously

modified free software to build the Web site and route and secure the transmission of data to

Wikileaks.org.

(S//NF) The construction of a SQL database, the merging of leaked documents, and use of

publicly available tools to glean information from the Web sites of various DoD and private

organizations such as globalsecurity.org and then make the information available in a searchable

format, allowing access to and manipulation of the data and information for research purposes by

users of Wikileaks.org, demonstrate a high level of technical capability and resourcefulness.

(S//NF) The current and future intent of the Wikileaks.org staff and writers is to continue

development of enhanced tools for the manipulation of the 2,000 pages of information on US

forces by visitors to the Web site. Future efforts may include expanding the use of encryption,

operational cyber tradecraft, and physical tradecraft in the delivery and transmission of leaked

information for posting to the Wikileaks.org Web site. It is highly likely that transmission

security will improve as new technology, the technical skills of current members, or new funding

sources allow. The purchase of more secure equipment, transmission means, and encryption

protocols is possible if additional financial resources are made available to the organization.

(U) Is it Free Speech or Illegal Speech?

(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org allows anonymous publication of information and records without

oversight or accountability; anyone can post information to the Web site, and there is no editorial

review, fact checking, or oversight of the posted information. Persons accessing the Web site are

encouraged to form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information and are

 

allowed to post their own comments. This open policy of posting information and providing

commentary could create multiple legal issues for Wikileaks.org that could subject members to

legal prosecution or civil issues by foreign governments, businesses, and individual

complainants. In addition, some governments may contend that accessing the Web site itself is a

crime, and that shutting down or blocking access to the Web site is a reasonable countermeasure

to prevent viewing or downloading of objectionable content. This situation raises the possibility

that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be deliberately used to post fabricated information; to post

misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda; or to conduct perception management and

influence operations designed to convey a negative message to specific audiences.

(U) Diverse views exist within the United States and other countries regarding the stated goals of

Wikileaks.org. Some believe that the leaking and posting of information is constitutionally

protected free speech and supports freedom of the press, open-society initiatives, and

government accountability, and that leaking the information serves the greater good versus any

illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business

information. Others believe that Wikileaks.org or individual persons associated with

Wikileaks.org will face legal challenges in some countries regarding the privacy of individuals

and businesses, the revelation of sensitive or classified government information, or the posting of

information that is allegedly wrong, false, slanderous, or libelous. Several foreign companies

have already filed civil lawsuits in the United States and the United Kingdom for data theft, libel,

and damage to their business reputation for the posting of internal and proprietary company

information to the Wikileaks.org Web site. The Wikileaks.org Web site was temporarily

shutdown in late February 2008 for 2 weeks in the United States by court order over the

publication of sensitive documents in a case involving a potential money laundering, grand

larceny, and tax evasion charges by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

Julius Bare Bank decided to drop the court case against Wikileaks.org in US courts. The US

court order was lifted and the Web site was restored in the United States.

(U) In addition, several prominent bloggers have questioned the usage and reliability of the

security of the software used to develop the Web site and to protect communications and

identities of leakers. The motives and methods of the Wikileaks.org developers and members

have been questioned, and several bloggers believe that other Internet forums exist that served

the same function in a more ethical manner. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel to

discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it allows uncorroborated

information to be posted, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization for

the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Wikileaks.org denies these accusations, and no evidence

has been presented to support such assertions.[39]

(U//FOUO) Questions and concerns have been raised by media consultants, ethics experts, and

other journalists regarding the status of Wikileaks.org as a news organization and of its staff

writers as journalists. The contention by some is that Wikileaks.org does not qualify as a news

organization and thus its staff writers are not journalists. Wikileaks.org‘s desire to expose alleged

wrongdoing by revealing sensitive or classified government or business information, in effect,

encourages the theft of sensitive or classified proprietary information or intellectual property. In

doing so, some argue, Wikileaks.org is knowingly encouraging criminal activities such as the

theft of data, documents, proprietary information, and intellectual property, possible violation of

 

national security laws regarding sedition and espionage, and possible violation of civil laws.

Within the United States and foreign countries the alleged ?whistleblowers? are, in effect,

wittingly violating laws and conditions of employment and thus may not qualify as

?whistleblowers? protected from disciplinary action or retaliation for reporting wrongdoing in

countries that have such laws. Also, the encouragement and receipt of stolen information or data

is not considered to be an ethical journalistic practice. In addition, the sources of Wikileaks.org

staff writers are not verified, nor are its news articles fact-checked or confirmed by additional

sources, as customary in news organizations. Moreover, there is no editorial review of the

articles prior to publication. Finally, some critics contend that the staff writers are biased and

have made unsupportable claims to support political agendas to effect change in government or

business policy.[40]

(U) Several countries have complained publicly or blocked access to Wikileaks.org and similar

Web sites and have asserted claims that they have the right to investigate and prosecute

Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers. In addition, several countries also claim the right to

remove false information, sensitive or classified government information, propaganda, or other

malicious content from the Internet. As a result, Wikileaks.org members have already posted

information in China on how to circumvent blocks to the Web site imposed by the Chinese

government for having objectionable content related to the participation of Chinese dissents in

Wkileaks.org and to pro-democracy issues. [41]

 (U) Intelligence Gaps

(S//NF) What individual persons or entities are leaking DoD sensitive or classified

information to Wikileaks.org, and are they working on behalf of a foreign agent or

power? What are the reasons, intentions, and motivations of the current or former

insider?

(S//NF) Is the potential insider leaking the information to Wikileaks.org a former

employee of the US government or a mole still working for the US government? How is

the insider sending digital information to Wikileaks.org? What cyber or other tradecraft is

the perpetrator using?

(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services,

foreign insurgents, or terrorist groups to collect sensitive or classified US Army

information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site?

(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or

foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation or to

conduct perception or influence operations to discredit the US Army?

(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used for operational or cyber tradecraft to

pass information to or from foreign entities?

(S/NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site developers obtain new software for Web site

development, management, security, encryption of messages or files, or posting

anonymous information to the Web site?

(S//NF) From what foreign personnel or groups does Wikileaks.org receive funding or

collaborate with for sharing information or development of new software?

 

(S//NF) Will foreign entities attempt to conduct CNE or CNA to obtain information on

the posters of information or block content on the Wikileaks.org Web site?

(S//NF) What software, tactics, techniques, and procedures would be used by a foreign

actor to conduct CNE or CNA against the Web site?

(S//NF) Will foreign persons, businesses, or countries attempt civil lawsuits or criminally

prosecute whistleblowers, Wikileaks.org staff, and members who posted comments on

the Web site?

(S//NF) Will Wikileaks.org and various users expand the data fields in the TOE SQL

database to include equipment capabilities, equipment limitations and vulnerabilities,

known unit locations, links to geospatial information services, or known unit personnel to

develop ?battle books? for targeting packages?

(S//NF) What other leaked DoD sensitive or classified information has been obtained by

Wikileaks.org?

(S//NF) Will foreign organizations such as FISS, foreign military services, foreign

insurgents, or terrorist groups provide funding or material support to Wikileaks.org?

[Back to Table of Contents]

(U) Conclusions

(S//NF) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by

protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful

identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the

information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org

would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar

actions.

(U//FOUO) The unauthorized release of DoD information to Wikileaks.org highlights the need

for strong counterintelligence, antiterrorism, force protection, information assurance, INFOSEC,

and OPSEC programs to train Army personnel on the proper procedures for protecting sensitive

or classified information, to understand the insider threat, and to report suspicious activities. In

addition, personnel need to know proper procedures for reporting the loss, theft, or comprise of

hard or soft copy documents with sensitive information or classified information to the

appropriate unit, law enforcement, or counterintelligence personnel. Unfortunately, such

programs will not deter insiders from following what they believe is their obligation to expose

alleged wrongdoing within DoD through inappropriate venues. Persons engaged in such activity

already know how to properly handle and secure sensitive or classified information from these

various security and education programs and has chosen to flout them.

(S//NF) It must be presumed that Wikileaks.org has or will receive sensitive or classified DoD

documents in the future. This information will be published and analyzed over time by a variety

of personnel and organizations with the goal of influencing US policy. In addition, it must also

be presumed that foreign adversaries will review and assess any DoD sensitive or classified

information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site. Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will

continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection,

counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future.

 

Sensitive or classified information posted to Wikileaks.org could potentially reveal the

capabilities and vulnerabilities of US forces, whether stationed in CONUS or deployed overseas.

(S//NF) The proliferation of access to Internet, computer, and information technology technical

skills, software, tools, and databases will allow the rapid development, merging, integration, and

manipulation of diverse documents, spreadsheets, multiple databases, and other publicly

available or leaked information. Possible enhancements could increase the risk to US forces and

could potentially provide potential attackers with sufficient information to plan conventional or

terrorist attacks in locations such as Iraq or Afghanistan.

(S//NF) The various open or freeware applications used in the development and management of

Wikileaks.org continue to improve with time. Several Internet software development companies,

foundations, electronic privacy organizations, database management services, encryption

developers, and anonymous e-mail services can generate sufficient income, accept donations,

and use volunteers to continue to develop and improve the software. Improvements in these

software applications will provide greater privacy and anonymity of persons who leak

information to Wikileaks.org.

(S//NF) The possibility that various computer experts, researchers, and users could expand the

data fields in the TOE SQL database to include pictures; equipment capabilities, limitations and

vulnerabilities; known unit locations; links to geospatial information; and known unit personnel

cannot be ruled out. The continued development of new technologies for merging and integrating

various geographic or other information services into easy-to-use databases could allow rapid

compilation of unit profiles that could be used for developing actionable information for use by

FISS, foreign terrorist organizations, and other potential adversaries for intelligence collection,

planning, or targeting purposes.[42]

 (U) Point of Contact

(U) This special report was produced by the Army Counterintelligence Center (ACIC). ACIC

POC is Michael D. Horvath, Senior Analyst, Cyber CI Assessments Branch, commercial, 301-

677-2489 or DSN 622-2489.

 (U) Appendix A: Glossary

(U) FreeNet (or Freenet). Freenet is a decentralized and censorship-resistant distributed data

storage system. Freenet aims to provide freedom of speech through a peer-to-peer network with

strong protection of anonymity. Freenet pools contributed bandwidth and storage space of

member computers in the network to allow users to anonymously publish or retrieve various

 

kinds of data or information. The storage space is distributed among all connected nodes on

Freenet.[43]

(U) Google Earth. Google Earth is a geographic information system (GIS) using the Google

search engine that permits interactive viewing of digital satellite imagery, maps, terrain, and 3D

buildings.[44]

(U) MediaWiki. Wikipedia runs on its own in-house-created software, known as MediaWiki, a

powerful, open-source wiki system written in PHP and built upon MySQL. As well as allowing

articles to be written, it includes a basic internal macro language, variables, transcluded

templating system for page enhancement, and features such as redirection.[45]

(U) OpenSSL. The OpenSSL Project is a collaborative effort to develop an easy-to-use Open

Source toolkit implementing the Secure Sockets Layer and Transport Layer Security protocols

with encryption. The project is managed by a worldwide community of volunteers that use the

Internet to communicate, plan, and develop the OpenSSL toolkit and its related documentation.

The OpenSSL toolkit is licensed in a manner that allows free usage for commercial and

noncommercial purposes subject to some simple license conditions. [46]

(U) PGP. PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is an application and protocol for secure e-mail and file

encryption developed by Phil Zimmerman. PGP was originally published as freeware, and the

source code has always been available for public use and adaptation. PGP uses a variety of

algorithms, such as IDEA, RSA, DSA, MD5, and SHA-1 for providing encryption,

authentication, message integrity, and private and public-key management. PGP is based on the

?Web-of-Trust? model and is the most popular encryption system used by individual personnel,

businesses, and governmental entities throughout the world to protect or hide content on the

Internet. [47]

(U) SQL. SQL (Structured Query Language) is also known as Database Language SQL (S-Q-L),

is a computer language designed for the retrieval and management of data in a relational

database management system, database schema creation and modification, and database object

access control management. SQL is a standard interactive and programming language for getting

information from and to update a database. Queries take the form of a command language that

lets you select, insert, update, find out the location of data, and so forth. [48]

(U) SQLite. SQLite is a public domain software library that implements a self-contained,

serverless, zero-configuration application that does not require setup or administration, cross

platform, transactional SQL database engine that can support terabyte-sized databases and

gigabyte-sized strings and blobs. SQLite is the most widely deployed SQL database engine in the

world. The software application is used in countless desktop computer applications as well as

consumer electronic devices including cellular phones, Personal Digital Assistants, and MP3

players. The source code for SQLite is in the public domain. SQLite is a popular choice as the

database to back small-to-medium-sized Web sites because it requires no or little configuration

and stores information in ordered disk files that are easy to access and will preserve transactions

after system crashes or power outages. SQLite is a completely self contained application that has

 

a small code print (250KB size fully configured) and is a faster client/server for common

operations. [49]

(U) TOR (or Tor). Tor (The Onion Router) is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people or

various groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet. It also enables software

developers to create new communication tools with built-in privacy features. Tor provides the

foundation for a range of applications that allow organizations and individuals to share

information over public networks without compromising their privacy. Using Tor protects you

against a common form of Internet surveillance known as ?traffic analysis.? [50]

(U) Traffic analysis. Traffic analysis is a form of pattern and usage analysis that can be used to

infer who sending or receiving e-mail and data exchanges on a private network, public network,

or the Internet. Knowing the source and destination of Internet traffic allows individuals,

criminals, law enforcement, and intelligence and security services to track the activities,

behavior, and interests of the sender or receiver. This form of pattern analysis can be used to

identify persons and possibly threaten a person‘s employment and physical safety by revealing

who and where they are located. [51]

(U) Web servers. Web servers are computer hardware that stores HTML documents, images,

text files, scripts, and other Web-related data, collectively known as content, and distributes this

content to other clients on the network upon request.

(U) Wiki. A wiki is a type of Web site that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit

and change some available content, sometimes without the need for registration. This ease of

interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative authoring. The term

wiki can also refer to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation

of such a Web site or to certain specific wiki sites and the online encyclopedias such as

Wikipedia. Wiki was created in 1994 and installed on the Web in 1995 by Ward Cunningham.

[52]

(U) Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a blend of the words wiki and encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a

multilingual, Web-based free content encyclopedia project operated by the nonprofit Wikimedia

Foundation. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be

changed by almost anyone with access to the Web site. Wikipedia‘s main Web servers are in

Tampa, FL, with additional Web servers in Amsterdam and Seoul.[53}

 

(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis

of Leaked Tables of Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and

Afghanistan

(U) A Wikileaks.org staff writer, Julian Assange, with assistance from several other persons

developed a SQL data base to store the 2,000 pages of leaked TOE information and merged

information from other sources into a usable data base for research purposes. The entire SQL

database developed by the authors for the TOEs was posted on the Wikileaks Web site for

anyone to use. The following is a list of steps purportedly used to make the data easy to use and

accessible for persons wanting to conduct their research.

1. Julian Assange and other persons that assisted him used publicly available open-source

information to learn and understand the abbreviations, acronyms, numbers, and other

nomenclatures in the leaked information, specifically NSN (NATO Stock Number), LIN (Line

Item Number), and UIC (Unit Identification Code). The authors compiled their results and

documented the information on US military logistics in a separate document on the Web site.

2. They then found various public NSN catalogues on the Internet, which were used to confirm

the validity of random samples of the leaked information using these databases and other

deployment references.

3. By hand, they created tallies for a select list of interesting items through their observations of

the reviewed information within the database. They wrote a draft report based on their research

and analysis of the database and other publicly available information.

4. They then used software and software applications such as VIM macros, PERL scripts, and

several Python programs to organize the material into a more presentable spreadsheet format

(such as Afghanistan OEF Property List and Afghanistan OEF Property List.html).

5. They wrote additional software code to merge data from several NATO Logistics

spreadsheets, which allowed the NSNs to be organized into subcategories to identify the NATO

Supply Group and NATO Supply Classification for the equipment.

6. They obtained a list of NATO Supply Group and NATO Supply Classification codes from

public US military logistics sources available on the Internet that was merged with other

spreadsheets.

7. They used SQL to install a database program.

8. They merged the original leaked data into group and classification code tables using a SQL

database, in this case using SQLite. The authors noted that any SQL database could have been

used to index and catalogue the information.

9. They used SQL to merge NATO Supply Classifications with leaked data to provide extra

context and generate Afghanistan OEF Property List-extended.html

 

 

10. Using SQL, they generated several different indexes and tallies for the leaked items, by

NATO Supply Group, NATO Supply Classification, and NSN. This data was then converted into

HTML format and placed into an appendix.

11. Again using SQL, they generated a unique list of NSNs. They wrote a script or software

program to concurrently query the US logistics Web-query NSN search for pricing information

and extract the price for every NSN on the list (except for alphanumeric NSNs, which are not

listed, probably due to being Management Control Numbers).[54]

12. They merged pricing information into the SQL database.

13. They used SQL to generate a new tally by NSN, merged this with the pricing information for

each NSN, sorted by the total price, converted the data to HTML, and placed it into the

Appendix.

14. They used SQL to calculate the total value of all equipment for which they had cost

information.

15. They examined the data and extracted additional information that was of interest such as

notable units and items of equipment.[55]

 (U) References

[1] (U) Details of coordination available upon request.

[2] (U) Wikileaks. ?Global Defense of Sources and Press Freedoms, Circa Now—Tuesday, 27

November, 2007.? URL: www.wikileaks.org. Accessed 27 November 2007.

[3] (U) Wikileaks. ?Frequently Asked Questions.? URL: htttp://www.wikileaks.org/faq.

Accessed 27 November 2007.

[4] (U) The Times. ?The Week on the Web.? 27 January 2007, Accessed through Gale on 29

November 2007. Gale Document Number: CJ158454440. Source Citation; ?The week on the

web.? The Times; London, England, 27 January, 2007: 42. Academic One File. Gale. Remote

access for CFSC. 29 November 2007, at http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.

(U) Wikileaks. ?About? URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.

[5] (U) Reuters. ?President Hu Jintao of China Has Stepped His Campaign to Purify =The

Internet.‘? URL: reuters.com. Accessed 29 November 2007.

 

(U) DIA. (U) Information Operations Capstone Threat Assessment, Volume 6: Russia. DI-1577-

33-06 Vol. 6, January 2006. SECRET//NOFORN; Derived from: Multiple sources; Declassify

on: 20300804. Accessed on 17 December 2007.

(U) DIA. (U) Information Operations Capstone Threat Assessment, Volume 10: Computer

Network Operations. DI-1577-33-06 Vol. 10, January 2006. SECRET//NOFORN; Derived from:

Multiple sources; Declassify on: 20300804. Accessed on 17 December 2007.

(U) CIA. (U) Assessment of the Counterintelligence Environment in Israel as of April 2006. TD-

314-50963-06, 251859Z JUL 06. SECRET//NOFORN. Derived from: Hum 1-03 by recorded

reporting officer; Declassify on: 25X1-Human CL Reason 1.4(C).

[6] (U) PHSYORG. ?Wikileaks—Website for whistleblowers.? URL: www.phsyorg.org.

Accessed 28 November 2007.

[7] (U) Wikileaks. ?About.? URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.

[8] (UK//RESTRICTED) Joint Security Co-ordination Centre. (U) United Kingdom Network

Activity Team (UK-NAT) Report: UK-Nat Initial Research into Wikileaks.Org. Serial No. 0047,

13 February 2007. UK//RESTRICTED.

[9] (U) Obscurification technology: the science of obscuring or hiding objects and information.

[10] (U) Wikileaks. ?About.? URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.

[11] (U) School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. ?Internet

Geolocation and Evasion.? URL: http://cs.smu.ca/~jamuir/papers/TR-06-05.pdf. Accessed 5

January 2008.

(U) Geocities. ?Exposing Tor Users‘ IPs? URL:

http//uk.geocities.com/osin1941/exposingtor.html. Accessed on 28 December 2007.

(U) Secunia. ?Multiple Security Vulnerabilities for Tor.? CVE-2006-3407, CVE-2006-3408,

CVE-2006-3409, CVE-2006-3410, CVE-2006-0414, CVE-2006-3165, CVE-2006-4508, CVE-

2007-4096, CVE-2007-4097, CVE-2007-4098, CVE-2007-4099, CVE-2007-4174, CVE-2007-

4508, CVE-2007-4099. URL: http://archives.seul.org. Accessed on 8 January 2008.

[12] (U) Wikileaks. ?About.? URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.

[13] (U) Federal Times. ? Web Site Aims To Post Government Secrets.? 8 January 2007.

http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-

2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AFNB:FEDB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx

&rft_dat=116B327

BAEF51E40&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=106D72482B2E456E. Accessed 28

November 2007. Copyright by Federal Times. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the

permission of Gannett Co., Inc. by News Bank, Inc. Record Number: fed26373060. Accessed 28

November 2007.

[14] (U) Government Transparency. ?Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,

Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.? 27 September 2007. URL:

http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Reposted

to Web site with permission of the author. All Rights Reserved.

[15] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[16] (U) Wikileaks. ?Excel Spreadsheet: Iraq_OIF_Property_List.? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/ Iraq_OIF_Property_List. Accessed on 27 November 2007.

[17] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).? URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[18] (U) Julian Assange is a former computer hacker convicted by the Australian government for

hacking into US government and DoD computer networks in 1997. He is widely known for his

support for open government initiatives, leftist ideology, anti-US views, and opposition to the

Global War on Terrorism.

[19] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[20] (U) Wikileaks. ?About? URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.

[21] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[22] (S//NF) See ACIC Special Report, Iraqi Insurgent and Militia Group Intelligence

Capabilities to Counter US Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Systems, NGIC-2381-7326-

06, for a discussion on the transnational terrorist threat to the Warlock system. In addition, see

ACIC Special Report, Multidiscipline Counterintelligence Threat Assessment for the Counter

Radio Control Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare (CREW)-2 Program, NGIC-

2381-0482-07, for a discussion of the FISS and foreign terrorism threat to the associated critical

program information for the WARLOCK system.

[23] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27

November 2007.

 

[24] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).? URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[25] (U) Available at URL:

https://www.webflis.dlis.dla.mil/WEBFLIS/ASPscripts/pub_search.aspx.

[26] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).? URL:

http://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[27] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[28] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.? 8 November 2007. URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29

November 2007.

[29] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.? 8 November 2007. URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29

November 2007.

[30] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.? 8 November 2007. URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29

November 2007.

(U) US Army. Field Manual 3-11.9: Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and

Compounds—Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. January 2005. Distribution Restriction:

Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited. Available on AKO at www.us.army.mil.

Accessed on 18 December 2007.

[31] (U) US Army. Field Manual 3-11.9: Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and

Compounds—Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. January 2005. Distribution Restriction:

Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited. Available on AKO at www.us.army.mil.

Accessed on 18 December 2007.

[32] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.? 8 November 2007. URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29

November 2007.

[33] (U) Wikileaks. ?Guantanamo Document Confirms Psychological Torture.? 11 November

2007. URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Guantanamo_document_confirms_psychological_torture.

Accessed 27 November 2007.

 

(U) Original Citation: US Federal Court. ?United States vs. American Civil Liberties Union.?

URL:

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/20070110/DoD_vaughn_r_denied_in_full_section_6_interim.

pdf. Accessed 17 December 2007.

[34] (U) Carol Rosenberg. Miami Herald. ?Old Manual Sheds Light on Detainee Treatment.? 15

November 2007. URL:

http://pd.miami.com/sp?aff=100&keywords=old+manual+sheds+light+on+Detainee+Treatment

&submit=go. Accessed 17 December 2008.

[35] (U) Wikileaks.org. ? Classified U.S. Report into the Fallujah Assult [sic].? 25 December

2007. URL: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_U.S_report_into_the_Fallujah_assult.

Accessed 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD

information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be

handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR. Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex

Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.

SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived from: Multiple sources. Declassify on 20310306.

[36] Source available on request.

[37] (U) Wikileaks.org. ?Classified U.S. Report into the Fallujah Assult [sic].? 25 December

2007. URL: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_U.S_report_into_the_Fallujah_assult.

Accessed 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD

information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be

handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR.) Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex

Environments: Battle of Fallujah I. April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.

SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived from: Multiple sources. Declassify on 20310306.

[38] (U) Wikileaks.org. ?Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004.? 25 December

2007. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Complex_Environments:_Battle_of_Fallujah_I%2C_April_2004.

Accessed on 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD

information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be

handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR. Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex

Environments: Battle of Fallujah I. April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.

SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived From: Multiple Sources. Declassify on 20310306.

[39] (U) Government Transparency. ?Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,

Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.? 27 September 2007. URL:

http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required

Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.

(U) Spy Blog. ?Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?? 5 January 2007.

URL:

http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_

a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17

December 2007.

 

[40] (U) Government Transparency. ?Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,

Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.? 27 September 2007. URL:

http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required

Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.

(U) Spy Blog. ?Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?? 5 January 2007.

URL:

http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_

a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17

December 2007.

[41] (U) Government Transparency. ?Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,

Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.? 27 September 2007. URL:

http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required

Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.

(U) Spy Blog. ?Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?? 5 January 2007.

URL:

http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_

a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17

December 2007.

[42] (U) Network World. McNamara, Paul. ?Google Earth and =collateral damage.‘? 19 January

2007. Academic One File. Gale. Remote access for CFSC. 29 November 2007. URL:

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE. Gale Document Number: A158081425.

Accessed on 29 November 2007.

[43] (U) Wikipedia. ?Freenet? URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet. Accessed on 18

December 2007.

(U) The Freenet Project. ?What is the Freenet Project?? URL: http://freenet

project.org/whatis.html. Accessed on 18 December 2007.

[44] (U) Google Earth. ?About Google Earth.? URL: http://earth.google.com/. Accessed on 18

December 2007.

[45] (U) Wikipedia. ?About Wikipedia.? URL: http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/wikipedia.

Accessed on 17 December 2007.

[46] (U) OpenSSL Project. ?About OpenSSL Project.? URL: http://www.openssl.org/. Accessed

17 December 2007.

[47] (U) PGP. ?Glossary for PGP.? URL: http://www.pgp.com/company/pgp_glossary.html.

Accessed on 17 December 2007

 

[48] (U) Wikipedia. ?SQL.? URL: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL. Accessed on 16 December

2007.

(U) Chapple, Mike. SQL Fundamentals (HTML), About.com: Databases. About.com. Retrieved

on 2007-06-10.

(U) Structured Query Language (SQL) (HTML), International Business Machines, 27 October,

2006. Retrieved on 6 October 2007; Accessed on 17 December 2007.

[49] (U) Sqlite.org. ?SQLITE? URL: http://www.sqlite.org/features.html. Accessed on 4 January

2008.

[50] (U) Tor Project. ?Tor: anonymity online.? http://www.torproject.org/index.html.en.

Accessed on 18 December 2007.

[51] (U) Tor Project. ?Why We Need Tor.? http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en.

Accessed on 18 December 2007.

[52] (U) Wikipedia. ?Wiki.? URL: http://www.ismc.sgov.gov/wiki/wiki. Accessed on 8 January

2008.

[53] (U) Wikipedia. ?Wikipedia? URL: http://www.ismc.sgov.gov/wiki/Wikipedia. Accessed on

8 January 2008.

[54] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27

November 2007.

(U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).? URL:

https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27

November 2007.

[55] (U) Wikileaks. ?US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).? URL:

www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27

November 2007. Note: The SQL database referenced in the article is accessible at the following

URL: leak:us_military_equipment_in_iraq_and_afghanistan.sql.gz