There is hope for Bradley Manning yet. That statement seems odd given that he's not challenging the facts of his case and, instead, is opting for a mitigation strategy. However, as the saga of Herbert O. Yardley shows, treasonous heels can become heroes if the evidence of their guilt is hidden by classification, buried in document dumps, and obscured by the passage of enough time. This was proven in 1999 when Yardley became an inaugural member of the NSA's Hall of Honor.
Well documented by James Bamford's books and the NSA's own website, Yardley "served as a cryptologic officer with the American Expeditionary Forces in France during WWI. In the 1920s he was chief of MI-8, the first U.S. peacetime cryptanalytic organization, jointly funded by the U.S. Army and the Department of State. In that capacity, he and a team of cryptanalysts exploited nearly two dozen foreign diplomatic cipher systems. MI-8 was disbanded in 1929 when the State Department withdrew its share of the funding." In 1931, in need of funds, Yardley published 'his memoirs of MI-8, "The American Black Chamber." In this book, Yardley revealed the extent of U.S. cryptanalytic work in the 1920s."
What Bamford did not know or chose to leave out his books was the fact that Yardley sold out the American Black Chamber to the Japanese Empire for 7,000 in 1930. This fact was uncovered by Ladislas Farago during his research forThe Broken Seal: The Story of Operation Magic and the Pearl Harbor Disaster, a book on cryptography relation to Pearl Harbor. The story spawned an CIA investigation. Below is the 12/12/1967 Memorandum for the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence from Walter Pforzheimer confirming the allegations.
Nor was the CIA alone in launching an investigation. The National Security Agency conducted its own inquiry into Yardley's conduct which "tend[ed] to strongly to substantiate Farago's basic claim" though it also found that "much of the rest of his account of the transaction either could not be confirmed or was found to be wrong."(1) This tendency to be wrong was undoubted a reason that David Kahn and others disbelieved his allegations.(2) Eventually, the controversy as well as Yardley's memory faded from public memory creating the space necessary for his 1999 Hall of Honor Induction.
(1) [redacted], "The Many Lives of Herbert O. Yardley, Cryptologic Spectrum, Fall 1981 - Vol. 11, No. 4 , pg. 26 Read here
(2)Ibid., pg 28 fn. 68
Not unexpectedly, the National Security Agency has invoked Glomar in response to the one of FOIA requests that I had submitted to the NSA seeking intelligence records on WikiLeaks.
Unexpectedly, the National Security Agency merged the request for WikiLeaks records with a request I had submitted to the NSA for all emails sent to or by the General Alexander DirNSA pertaining to WikiLeaks or Julian Assange. The National Security Agency conceded that they possessed non-intelligence records pertaining to WikiLeaks, but as the letter below states, it would cost them over $3,000 to process and they would bill me for it. Since I cannot afford such fees, I had the request withdrawn. However, I think the NSA has opted, sadly, to employ fees to deny me access to information.
Before Cablegate was a twinkle in Julian Assange’s eye, I had a FOIA request submitted on my behalf to the United States State Department regarding the Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandals. At the time, I was flirting with the idea of abandoning special education for a career as a freelance journalist and reporter extraordinaire. Since my learning disabilities preclude easy accuracy with grammar and syntax, I have opted to be an investigative blogger of the hobbyist-variety. However, my FOIA requests have gradually worked their way though the system and I write expose based on them.
Approximately year after the FOIA request was submitted, I received four cables from AMEMBASSY VATICAN (The American Embassy in the Vatican) from the State Department’s FOIA staff. One them was 10 VATICAN 33, a cable formerly classified “SECRET,” meaning at its creation, unauthorized access to or leaking of the cable would have caused “grave damage" to American national security. Not surprisingly, portions of it are still redacted in the released version.
However, thanks to WikiLeaks, the redacted portions of this cable are available for public consumption, giving the average reader a direct, Vienna sausage making view of what the AMEMBASSY Vatican holds to be “Secret” and capable of endangering American lives.
Below are the excised portions of the cable I posted above with some light commentary. For the record, I have deleted the daffy ASCII characters contained within the WikiLeaks copy of the cable that I am posting here. The WikiLeaks version is available at their official site.
Section 1- Initially classified “Confidential” in its entirety; a brief portion was released in response to my FOIA request. Here are the redacted portions:
Vatican and Irish officials first concern was for the victims, but that reality was sometimes obscured in the events that followed which also cast a chill on Irish-Vatican relations. The Vatican believes the Irish government failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty during the investigations. Much of the Irish public views the Vatican protests as pettily procedural and failing to confront the real issue of horrific abuse and cover-up by Church officials. The resulting profound crisis in the Irish Church, meanwhile, required intervention by Pope Benedict, who met with Irish Church leaders in December 2009 and in February 2010 to discuss next steps. Although the Pope will address a pastoral letter on the situation to Irish Catholics in the next few weeks, both the Vatican and the local Catholic Church agree that further follow-up should be handled domestically in Ireland. The Vatican’s relatively swift response to this crisis showed it learned key lessons from the U.S. sex abuse scandals in 2002 but still left some Catholics - in Ireland and beyond -- feeling disaffected. The crisis will play out for years inside Ireland, where future revelations are expected, even as new clerical sex abuse allegations are being made in Germany. End Summary
Sections 4-7 were withheld from me in their entirety. The State Department’s redactors went as far as to obscure which sections of the cable were being withheld. From the copy of the cable provided to me, it is unclear whether or not portions of section 3 are being redacted despite being the section being classified as Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) and thus not illegible for b(1) protection.
4. (S/NF) While Vatican contacts immediately expressed deep sympathy for the victims and insisted that the first priority was preventing a recurrence, they also were angered by how the situation played out politically. The Murphy Commission’s requests offended many in the Vatican, the Holy See’s Assessor Peter Wells (protect strictly) told DCM, because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty. Vatican officials were also angered that the Government of Ireland did not step in to direct the Murphy Commission to follow standard procedures in communications with Vatican City. Adding insult to injury, Vatican officials also believed some Irish opposition politicians were making political hay with the situation by calling publicly on the government to demand that the Vatican reply. Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent) Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters rogatory.
5. (S/NF) The Irish Embassy to the Holy See offered to facilitate better communications between the Irish commission and the Holy See, but neither party took any further action. Irish Ambassador Noel Fahey (formerly ambassador to Washington) told DCM this was the most difficult crisis he had ever managed. The Irish government wanted to be seen as cooperating with the investigation because its Education Department was implicated, but did not want to insist that the Vatican answer the requests because they had come outside of regular channels. In the end, the Irish government decided not to press the Vatican to reply, according to Fahey’s Deputy, Helena Keleher. Moreover, Keleher
VATICAN 00000033 002.2 OF 003
told Polchief the CDF probably did not have much to add to the inquiry. Regarding the request for the Nuncio to testify, Keleher said the GOI understood that foreign ambassadors are not required or expected to appear before national commissions. Nevertheless, Keleher thought the Nuncio in Ireland made things worse by simply ignoring the requests.
6. (C) The resentment caused by the Murphy Commission tactics - and failure of the Government of Ireland to temper them -- now has worn off a little in Rome. This is in part because the legal and diplomatic questions posed by the Commission’s demands are now moot since the Murphy Commission released its report in November 2009. It substantiated many of the claims and also concluded that some bishops tried to cover up the abuses, putting the interests of the Church ahead of those of the victims.
7. (C) The Irish people’s anger, however, has not worn off. The refusal of the Holy See to respond to the Murphy Commission questions caused a furor of public disbelief in Ireland when it became known. Foreign Minister Martin was forced to call in the Papal Nuncio to discuss the situation. The Irish public was not mollified. Resentment toward the Church in Rome remains very high, particularly because of the institutionalized cover-up of abuse by the Catholic Church hierarchy. In the wake of the scandal, four of the five bishops named in the Murphy Report have resigned; the fifth has refused to quit. Archbishop Martin’s Christmas Eve Midnight Mass announcement of the resignation of two of the five key bishops named in the Murphy report was met be thunderous applause, which he had a hard time quieting.
A few words were redacted on National Security grounds in section 8. Specifically, it was viewed as “prejudicial” to American interests and security that the Vatican know that AMEMBASSY VATICAN thought the normally cautious Vatican moved with with uncharacteristic speed to deal with the sex abuse scandal.
8.(C)Meanwhile, the normally cautious Vatican moved with uncharacteristic speed to address the internal Church crisis. The Pope convoked a meeting with senior Irish clerical leaders on December 11, 2009. Irish Cardinal Sean Brady and Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin came to Rome and met with the Pontiff, who was flanked by Cardinal Bertone (the Vatican Prime Minster equivalent), and four other Cardinals whose duties include oversight over some aspect of the Irish situation. At the end of the meeting, the Vatican issued a statement saying that the Pope shared the outrage, betrayal, and shame of Irish Catholics over the deliberations, that he was praying for the victims, and that the Church would take steps to prevent recurrences. Archbishop Martin told reporters afterwards that he expected a major shake-up of the Church in Ireland.
Sections 9-10 are provided without redaction. However, sections 11-14 are redacted with the exception of two titles. I present them below:
11. (C/NF) Judging by media commentary, many non-Irish Catholics felt the Vatican’s response to the crisis was a good start but more was needed. Irish Deputy Head of Mission Keleher told polchief on February 18 that she sympathized with victims’ groups’ criticism of the Vatican statement, because it was not more focused on the pain caused to the victims. Victims’ associations also have complained that the Pope did not issue an apology for the abuses and that he did not order the removal of the remaining bishop accused of the cover-up. (Archbishop Martin’s comments in December apparently had convinced many that the Vatican would remove the errant bishops if they did not quit.)
Comment: Some Lessons Learned, but Crisis Will Play Out for Years
12. (C) In keeping with the Catholic practice of making local bishops ultimately responsible for the management of their dioceses, we expect that the locus of the crisis and measures to address it will remain largely with the Catholic Church in Ireland. One exception will be on decisions of whether to accept or reject resignation offers from the implicated bishops -- or the removal of the bishop who refused to offer his resignation -- which rest with the Pope. The other big exception will be the Pope’s pastoral letter to Irish Catholics, in which the Vatican may address concerns and criticisms about statements and actions undertaken to date. After this, though, the Vatican will return to the background - while keeping an eye on the Irish bishops and continuing to urge them to speak with one voice. Our contacts at the Vatican and in Ireland expect the crisis in the Irish Catholic Church to be protracted over several years, as only allegations from the Dublin Archdiocese have been investigated to date. Investigations of allegations from other Archdioceses will lead, officials in both states lament, to additional painful revelations.
13. (C) In Ireland, these abuse scandals occurred at the end of a long period of increasing secularization of society - and may further reduce the influence of the Catholic Church. Indeed, the great vehemence of the Irish reaction to this crisis reflects how far the Catholic Church in Ireland has fallen. Once ensconced in the Irish Constitution, the Irish Catholic Church reached the height of its prestige and power with the 1979 visit of Pope John Paul II but it has been falling ever since. At the same time, the Murphy Report reflects Irish shame over the collaboration of Ireland’s state bodies, including its schools, courts and police, in the appalling abuses and cover-up that occurred for decades.
14. (S) Vatican analysts, meanwhile, agree that the Holy See’s handling of the Irish scandal shows the Vatican learned some important lessons from the U.S. sex abuse scandal of 2002. By acting quickly to express horror at allegations, to label the alleged acts both crimes and sins, and to call in the local leaders to discuss how to prevent recurrences, the Vatican limited - but certainly did not eliminate - the damage caused to the Church’s standing in Ireland and worldwide. Unfortunately, given the growing abuse scandal in Germany, it may need to deploy those lessons again before long. End Comment.
Section 15 mentions that Ambassador Diaz helped to create the cable.
I cannot say that I find anything within these cables that would case “grave damage” to American national security. Public information such as the Irish cheering the demise of rape apologists and protectors hardly seems “prejudicial” to American interests. Most of this information is public domain information already and shocking to no one with a basic familiarity with the situation.
Much has been made over the last week as WikiLeaks has been releasing portions of what is believed to be a cache of over 250,000 State Department cables believed to have been given to them by Pfc. Bradley Manning.
However, below is evidence that at least one of the cables was previously released by State Department itself creating the possibly other cables were also be declassified by the State Department through mechanism like FOIA and the Mandatory Declassification Review Process.
The cable in question is 75TEHRAN2069 Click the link to access the WikiLeaks' version of it. Below is the electronic copy of it released to the National Archives by the State Department and available through the National Archives' NARA's Access to Archival Databases (AAD). Except for formating and the decision by WikiLeaks (I presume) to call the cable 75TEHRAN2069 instead of 74TEHRAN02069, the cable content is exact. (Of course the dropped "0" could mean that WikiLeaks or Manning altered the documents, but I doub this.)
As the cables are released, it would be fruitful to compare them to cables in the State Department's Electronic Reading Room and the National Archives to see how many have been previously released. Scholars should also consult their personal archives and post any relevant cables that they have had given to them by the State Department
Recently, I FOIAed the Central Intelligence Agency seeking “copies of all records [for] current or previous plans to assassinate Julian Assange, Australian national and spokesman for Wikileaks.org. Again, despite my prior experience with the CIA refusing to confirm or deny a plot to kill Glenn Beck, I honestly expected the CIA to issue a firm “no records” response to my request. Again, I was shocked at the response I did receive.
The CIA invoked the “Glomar” response and has chosen to “neither confirm nor deny” any records pertaining to any CIA plot to kill Julian Assange on the grounds that such records, if they exist, “is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure”
Honestly, I do not believe the theories going around claiming the CIA is out to get Assange or has anything to do with his residence problems in Sweden or the molestation and rape allegations he faces there. However, in light of the dubious decisions to employ Glomar in response to this request and Obama's proclamation that he has the right to assassinate Americans without judicial review makes me less sympathetic to CIA complaints of being misunderstood or portrayed in a bad light by conspiracy theories.
For all the hubbub about WikiLeaks and alleged plots by the CIA and Department of Defense to frame or assassinate its leader Julian Assange, it seems that many federal law enforcement agencies are simply not putting in significant effort to stop WikiLeaks.
It can now be reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has thus far declined to investigate the Wau Holland Foundation. The Wau Holland Foundation, named after a famed member of the German computer hacking collective Chaos Computer Club, has been named as a leading source of WikiLeaks of funding (processor of donations see below) by the Wall Street Journal. Despite this and the linkage to the Chaos Computer Club, the FBI has opted not to investigate further.
Nota Bene
I was informed via Twitter that describing Wau Holland Foundation as a "funder" was incorrect. Looking at it again, I'm inclined to treat it as a funder. It is claimed that all it does is accept donations for WikiLeaks which it then (allegedly) dispenses. However, I have never dealt or seen any organization that supposedly just accepts funds on behalf of a non-profit for that non-profit's use turn around and demand receipts before issuing out grants.
Even if I am wrong on this point, my major point about American law enforcement and military agencies not caring about WikiLeaks remains unchallenged.
WikiLeaks is an “extremist website” according to a February 2009 Agent’s Activity Summary from [redacted], a Criminal Intelligence Specialist with US Army Criminal Investigation Division.
Other than choice tidbit and the revelation that WikiLeaks is not a member of the Better Business Bureau, there is little else of interest in [redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist’s Agent’s Activity Summary. This report tells that WikiLeaks was investigated again on 2/18/2009 when a captain with the Washington State Patrol called the 44th Military Police Detachment (CID), Fort Lewis, WA to warn them about a “website that may solicit soldiers to upload sensitive or classified documents to a public website.”
After the website was identified as Wikileaks.org, an investigation was launched. Rudimentary and limited in scope, the investigation into WikiLeaks revealed that “according to Google, Wikileaks publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and corporate misconduct.” [redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist proceeded to check the “About” section on the WikiLeaks home page, to find out that it was started by “Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and startup company technologists, from the United States, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.” [redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist also noted that WikiLeaks disavowed any “formal relationship with Wikipedia” and WikiLeaks ’ proclamation that it “was not a front for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) or the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) AKA MI6.” [redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist detailed that WikiLeaks encourage “whistleblowers” to submit documents and details the process by which those submissions occurred.
[redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist then lists some of the United States military records then available on WikiLeaks before concluding with a listing of the assorted inquires conducted during [redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist’s investigation. [redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist reported that a check of Whois.net shows that WikiLeaks is registered through GoDaddy.com, and the point of contact listed in the Whois.net is [redacted] causing [redacted] Criminal Intelligence Specialist to mock WikiLeaks’ “army of analysts, journalists and other staff”. Finally, Lexis Nexis and the Better Business Bureau “revealed no record.”
The report is concluded with Army CID record keeping matters. The report and the information contained within were “disseminated for criminal purposes,” while no “.0015 funds were expended.” Finally, the report is noted as being “terminal.” At the very end, the standard CID boilerplate about use of their reports is included along with a distribution list for the report itself.
My other post on the NCIS' WikiLeaks investigation is available here. For my report on the Defense Technical Information Center lack of Wikileaks.org records, see here Finally, here is an earlier posting about an investigation into WikiLeaks by the Army CID.
On December 3, 2007, the assistant security manager of the 655th Regional Support Group was alerted by a unit member who reported finding a very detailed listing of 382nd Military Police Battalion has discovered a “very detailed listing of 382nd MP BN equipment on Wikileaks.org. (The report is still available here). The assistant security manager alerted his chain of command as well as the 94 RRC (Regional Readiness Reserve Commands) Command Security Manager. The 94 RCC Security Manager alerted Mr. [Redacted] seeking guidance on which law enforcement and or military intelligence units had to be contacted. Permission was also requested for the incident to be included in the 94 RCC Security Manager’s OPSEC (Operational Security) briefing.
On December 7, 2007, The agent who created the “Agent’s Activity Summary” stated that he was going to contact the West Point CID (Criminal Investigation Division ) to determine whether the Active Duty CID had a plan in place for such contingencies.
While the Agent’s Activity Summary states, “I do know at this moment,” I believe what the Activity Summary agent meant to say was “I do not know at this moment…” based on his earlier statement about contacting West Point CID for direction on how to handle the incident. The agent listed a few possibilities: 902nd Military Intelligence (MI), the West Point CID Office, or possibly the JTTF or a MA fusion cell. He also expressed his “strong support” for inclusion in the OPSEC briefing. All this occurred between 8:30 when the Special- Agent- in- Charge [Redacted], Boston Fraud Resident Agency received an email from a Mr. {Redacted] Ani-terrorism officer that an listing of 382nd MP BN equipment had been posted on Wikileaks.
Shortly after noon on December 7th, West Point CID’s Special- Agent- in- Charge announced via email that it was decided the leak was an OPSEC issue and that the 902nd MI would have “investigative responsibility” and that if the 902nd MI needed assistance that the West Office would provide it. He also advised that West Point CID had no intention of beginning its own investigation into the matter.
At 5:15 December 7th, the Activity Summary agent received an “email string” from a MPRI (military professional Resources Inc. staffer attached with IMCOM- NE ATO, IMC, North East Region; Current Operations which reported that one of the assistant security managers at Ft. Devens “chanced upon” a British website which has placed the entire joint service TDA & TO&E for Iraq and Afghanistan theaters on their website. This appears to be a reference to the events of December 3, 2007 discussed in the first paragraph. The author of the email stated that he “feels certain” that “someone” in the DOD is aware of the situation that he is reporting but is reporting “this information” to Army CID so that Army CID could alert the DA (Department of Army) OPSEC POC (Point of Contact). A Ms. [redacted] is noted as having passed the information to the Joint OPSEC Support Center. Activity Summary Agent then reports his intention to close TAB but only after following up with 902nd MI. On December 17, 2007, the agent reports that Special Agent [redacted] told him that “he had attempted to follow-up by requesting the lists of equipment from the unit, which was pending. His initial position is that none of the equipment was sensitive and therefore not releasable. He [sic] agreed that it probably should not be [on?] a website, but it is an issue that his office will not further pursue.
The released records raise all sorts of questions. Did Bradley Manning have any involvement in this leak? I have not been able to turn up any information on his duty stations. I doubt it given Manning enlisted in 2007.
Why did the US Army allow for such a lackluster investigation? Granted the 902nd decided that the files that were leaked were not “not releasable,” that still didn’t prevent someone for being nailed for violating OPSEC. Or being discovered and monitored for future violations. As far as the Army goes this could possibly be a missed opportunity prevent the future Manning leaks to Wikileaks.
Finally, why did the Army CID send me these records? Seriously, I did not request these records. I sought out the investigative records for a different Wikileaks leak investigation. Was this done in error?
Inspired by Glenn Greenwald's coverage of the arrest of Pfc Bradley Manning and the possible roll of Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen in the matter, I had a couple of FOIA requests fired off to the FBI. Today, I received my answers.
My first request was for any contact between Wired Magazine and the FBI during the first few weeks of the Manning affair. As seen below, they came back with a "no records" response." Assuming they are being honest in both search and their reply means they had no interaction with Kevin Poulsen or any other member of the Wired staff.
The second FOIA request was for the chat log between Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning. This request was not even processed with the FBI invoking both men's right to privacy to justify their lack of search.
I intend to submit appeals on both requests. I am not sure the FBI is entire on the level or that their search was as effective as it could have been. As for the chat log, it should qualify for release as a legal record and the notoriety of both Adrian Lamo and Bradley Manning.
In contrast, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) gave little consideration or attention to WikiLeaks. In response to a FOIA request for all NCIS records pertaining to WikiLeaks, NCIS released, with some minor redactions by NCIS and the Army Criminal Investigative Division for reasons of privacy, two pages of records. Assuming a honest disclosure, and the disclosed documents provided no reason to doubt that it is, the records demonstrate a surprising passivity of one of the DOD's premier investigative arms toward WikiLeaks given the all but declared war against WikiLeaks by the Pentagon.
The first page of the PDF is the cover page of the investigative file. It is the standard NCIS cover sheet designed to facilitate the rapid identification of the file. The investigation file is named “ WikiLeaks/Suspected Leakage of Classified Information” and was assigned case number 08FEB0824D400075EC. This investigation was a follow-up into a report of leaked classified information on WikiLeaks . The second page of the PDF, a single page report dated 2/8/2008 from that investigation, shows that a member of the NETWARCOM Security informed NCIS that WikiLeaks was hosting classified material. A report was taken by a Reporting Agent (RA) who then contacted a Special Agent involved with FCI (Foreign Counterintelligence Investigations.) The FCI agent informed him the US Army Criminal Investigation Division had been contacted and was conducting their own investigation into the matter. It was decided that “No Further Reporting [was] Anticipated.” The case was closed the same day with no additional investigations having been conducted since.
Posts
