Clinton cable shows frustration with Saudis

The United States believes its ally, Saudi Arabia, is ineffective at stopping terrorist fundraising in its own country, according to a cable obtained by WikiLeaks and published by the New York Times and the Guardian.

"It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote in a cable on Dec. 30, 2009.

In the same cable, Clinton pointed to donors in Saudi Arabia as the "most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide."

Such candid remarks had never been made public before the release of diplomatic cables between the U.S. State Department and its embassies and consulates around the world by WikiLeaks. The whistle-blowing website began releasing cables Nov. 28 and plans to publish 251,287 reports in the coming days.

The latest embarrassment for the U.S. fuelled more Republican calls to stop Julian Assange, the editor in chief and public face of WikiLeaks.

"He has done extreme damage to our country and I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said.

Meanwhile, WikiLeaks was forced to switch domain names after its U.S. host blocked the site. It is still reachable at the IP address http://213.251.145.96 from a provider in France.

Assange's lawyer in Britain said his client is holding back some sensitive material about the BP oil spill and Guantanamo Bay, which could be released if anything happens to the website or to him.

"They have been subject to a lot of cyber attacks, they've been subject to censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves and this is what they believe to be a thermo-nuclear device effectively in the electronic age," Mark Stephens told the BBC.

Assange is facing death threats and allegations of sexual misconduct by two WikiLeaks volunteers in Sweden. He has denied any wrongdoing and no charges have been laid.

His lawyer alleges that the case being prepared against Assange in Sweden is politically motivated.

The search for Assange stepped up on Wednesday as Sweden confirmed it issued a European arrest warrant for him. Since leaving Sweden, Assange has appeared in Britain and Switzerland but disappeared from public view after a Nov. 5 news conference in Geneva.

He has spoken publicly only through online interviews, and WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said late Wednesday the organization was trying to keep his location, likely somewhere in Britain, a secret for security reasons. He noted commentators in the United States and Canada had called for Assange to be hunted down or killed.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/05/wikileaks-clinton-saudiarabia.html

Ironically, we have made ourselves dependent on a terrorist state.

EU doubts Afghanistan success: WikiLeaks files

Another set of U.S. diplomatic cables collected by WikiLeaks could prove embarrassing for the war effort in Afghanistan.

Leaked memos show European Union President Herman Van Rompuy told the U.S. ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, that the EU no longer believes in the success of the military mission in Afghanistan.

Van Rompuy, a former Belgian prime minister, suggested European troops are still being deployed only to bow to what the United States wants.

"Europe is doing it and will go along out of deference to the United States, but not out of deference to Afghanistan," he is quoted as saying in a cable posted by the WikiLeaks whistleblowing website on Sunday.

In the 2009 memo, Van Rompuy is reported to have said the EU will wait until the end of 2010 to see whether progress is made in Afghanistan.

"No one believes in Afghanistan any more. But we will give it 2010 to see results. If it doesn't work, that will be because it is the last chance. And if a Belgian gets killed, it would be over for Belgium right then," he says.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/12/05/wikileaks-afghanistan.html

"if a Belgian gets killed, it would be over for Belgium right then"

Yep... they'd lose their last soldier...

 ~ Julian Assange will have blood on his hands and be solely responsible if ANY installation on that list anywhere in the world is attacked ~ Sooz

Dec 06, 2010
WikiLeaks reveals security sites 'critical' to U.S.
09:10 AM

A list of U.S. companies and installations around the world regarded as "critical" to the security of the United States has been published online by controversial website WikiLeaks, msnbc.com reports today.

The list includes factories, ports, fuel companies, drug manufacturers, undersea cables, pipelines, communication hubs and a host of other "key resources."

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley denounced the publication as "irresponsible."

The document was drawn up after the State Department asked diplomats in February 2009 to identify "systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States the incapacitation or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters."

"Julian Assange (WikiLeaks's founder) may be directing his efforts at the United States but he is placing the interests of many countries and regions at risk," Crowley said.

(Posted by John Bacon)

http://content.usatoday.com/communities ... titialskip

So, if James Bay was threatened, what would the US do?
Invade Canada?

are the sites legal?

moreover, do you really think the terrorists are so stupid as to be unaware of their best targets?

if anything, this list will show them that we are on to them.

honestly, i don't understand the reaction.

let me ask you a question sooz to illustrate what i think: do you think that the 911 hijackers thought things through?

you should really read "Dying To Win" by Pape.  he says it way better than i ever could.

i don't believe that AT ALL.  i think they acted on their own, and that they carefully planned it for over two years. 

also, the targets were very specific- designed to strike at the heart of western wealth and power.  they were clearly NOT designed to inflict maximum casualties.  if they were, they could have set off a bomb at the Rose Bowl and killed WAY more people.  or they could have attacked a nuke plant, and poisoned us for decades.  no, this was a SYMBOLIC attack.  the targets were designed to inflict maximum "ego damage". 

there were no accidents on 911.  there was no fervor.  it was cold, calculated murder.

Assange gave away nothing other than our knowledge that we know what they know.

the 911 commission determined that they had no financing.  they ran the operation by working day jobs in the US.  anyway, this is migrating from wikileaks, and i have an insane day ahead of me...so.....cul8r.

i agree that they were zealots.  that is pretty obvious.  but the attacks were very calculated, and that is the norm, not the exception.

Agreed, Mac.
Their objective isn't to inflict casualties, it's to terrorize the US by demonstrating that they cannot and will not be stopped... then they sit back and watch the US bleed itself to death. It's been working amazingly well, so far.
  

it is.  the Bush Era rhetoric was a dream come true for the fundies.  the continuation of the war is also making their recruiting far easier than ours.

like us, they are convinced they are right.  neither of us are right.  but our zealousness has apologists in high places, and theirs does not.

The Bush admin certainly cut your veins open.

totally.  the most isolating regime in history, i think.  awful.  and unfortunately, this admin has been more of a bandaid than stitches.

http://213.251.145.96/about.html Link to Wikileaks aims and mission....I'm not sure about the "national security" violations Assange is accused of, but I do know that "national security" has been an excuse for secrecy and non-transparency by governments around the world since the beginning of time....I find the accusations of sexual misconduct (by the Swedes of all people) to be more than a little convenient....in a time that the news media daily feeds the public dummied down news with little bite, I am sure that a rogue news investigative agency that does not cowtow to political influences is a big headache to some government officials...the anger and reactions of some who stand red faced by the Wikileaks revelations and these peoples' determination to "get" Assange speaks to me of a united agenda to stifle the press, with many players joining in the effort...and these people of power will stop at nothing in stopping Wikileaks...the anger is all focused on Assange, a spokesperson for many journalists...it reminds me of little brother tattling to mom that big sister is in the cookie jar, and big sister is furious at little brother for ratting her off when in fact big sister was committing the wrong....only in this case it would appear that Mom is joining big sister in being angry with little brother for tattling......

Excellent analogy mac! 
  

An example of wikileaks:   http://www.collateralmurder.com/

I might be alone here but I believe there ARE some things that should be kept confidential on the grounds of national security ~ is the claim of 'national security' used too often and too easily? ~ sure ~ but the problem as I see it is that without the proper background knowledge, it is VERY easy to misinterpret the 'raw material' with no context, which is most of what Wikileaks exposes ~ it's my understanding that Wikileaks accepts information from anonymous sources, with no due diligence to confirm either the sources or the material ~ think about that for just a minute ~ the most unhinged whacko can give Wikileaks a totally fabricated fantasy and Wikileaks exposes it ~ there is a time and a place and a procedure for legit whistle-blowers ~ the legits have and produce evidence of their claims ~

Sooz


  

it's my understanding that Wikileaks accepts information from anonymous sources, with no due diligence to confirm either the sources or the material ~

And you got that "understanding" from?

Actually, WikiLeaks made the material available to five newspapers.
It is they who published the information and iis they who allegedly did the due diligence.

Q: Why are they not being accused of anything and everything under the sun?
A: Because they have the means and the tools to fight back and, quite possibly, win.