The Afghan War documents leak is the disclosure of a collection of internal U.S. military logs of the War in Afghanistan, also called the Afghan War Diary, which were published by WikiLeaks on 25 July 2010.^[1][2] The logs consist of 91,731 documents, covering the period between January 2004 and December 2009. Most of the documents are classified Secret.^[2] As of 28 July 2010, only 75,000 of the documents have been released to the public, a move which Wikileaks says is "part of a harm minimization process demanded by [the] source".^[3][4] Prior to releasing the initial 75,000 documents, Wikileaks made the logs available to The Guardian,^[5][6] The New York Times^[7] and Der Spiegel in its German and English on-line edition^[8][9] which published reports per previous agreement on that same day, 25 July 2010.^[10][11]

The leak, which is considered to be one of the largest in U.S. military history,^[5][12] revealed information on the deaths of civilians, increased Taliban attacks, and involvement by Pakistan and Iran in the insurgency.^[1][13][14] Wikileaks says it does not know the source of the leaked data.^[15] The three outlets which had received the documents in advance, The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel, have all concluded that they are genuine when compared to independent reports.^[1]

The New York Times described the leak as "a six-year archive of classified military documents [that] offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war". The Guardian called the material "one of the biggest leaks in U.S. military history ... a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency".^[5] Der Spiegel wrote that "the editors in chief of Spiegel, The New York Times and the Guardian were 'unanimous in their belief that there is a justified public interest in the material'."^[1]

Some time after the first dissemination by WikiLeaks, the US Justice Department were considering the use of the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 to prevent WikiLeaks from posting the remaining 15,000 secret war documents it claimed to possess.^[16][17][18]

Background[link]

In June 2010, Guardian journalist Nick Davies and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange established that the US army had built a huge database with six years of sensitive military intelligence material, to which many thousands of US soldiers had access and some of them had been able to download copies, and WikiLeaks had one copy which it proposed to publish online, via a series of uncensorable global servers.^[19]

Wikileaks describes itself as "a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."^[20] In an interview with the U.K.'s Channel 4, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that "we have a stated commitment to a particular kind of process and objective, and that commitment is to get censored material out and never to take it down." He contrasted the group with other media outlets by saying that "other journalists try to verify sources. We don't do that, we verify documents. We don't care where it came from." He denied that the group has an inherent bias against the Afghanistan War, saying that "We don't have a view about whether the war should continue or stop – we do have a view that it should be prosecuted as humanely as possible." However, he also said that he believes the leaked information will turn world public opinion to think more negatively of the war.^[21]

An Obama administration statement disputed the self-reported status of WikiLeaks, stating that it "is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan."^[22] Journalist Will Heaven of The Daily Telegraph has said that WikiLeaks was not politically neutral when it fed its information to the left-leaning newspapers The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel instead of releasing the data openly. He said that the selectivity of the leak "contravene[d] its own mission statement – that crowdsourcing and open data are paramount."^[23] The Toronto Sun has referred to Assange's statements that "This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war" and "The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence" as evidence that he has an anti-war mission.^[24]

Issues raised[link]

Allegations of foreign support for the Taliban[link]

Pakistan[link]

According to Der Spiegel, "the documents clearly show that the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (usually known as the ISI) is the most important accomplice the Taliban has outside of Afghanistan."^[25] The New York Times was especially alarmed by the level of collusion with the Taliban, having concluded that Pakistan "allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders." The Guardian, however, did not think there was "a convincing smoking gun" for complicity between Pakistan intelligence services and the Taliban.^[26]

In particular, the leaks discuss an alleged incident in which Pakistan's former ISI spy chief Hamid Gul met with Afghan insurgents in January 2009, occurring right after alleged Pakistani al-Qaeda figure Osama al-Kini's death by a CIA drone attack. "The meeting attendees were saddened by the news of Zamarai's death and discussed plans to complete Zamarai's last mission by facilitating the movement of a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device from Pakistan to Afghanistan through the Khan Pass," leaked reports said. The New York Times stated that it could not confirm whether or not that the attack ever took place.^[22]

The initial web article in The New York Times on the subject, appearing 25 July was written by Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt, and Andrew Lehren, and titled "Pakistan Spy Service Aids Insurgents, Reports Assert". It was the lead article in the 26 July print edition of the Times.^[27] The article provided a wide range of excerpts from the paper, at some points focusing on coalition successes, and at other times excerpting sections that highlighted coalition failures. Many of the excerpts illustrated American frustration with local involvement, quoting the sources, noting that "glimpses of what appear to be Pakistani skullduggery contrast sharply with the frequently rosy public pronouncements of Pakistan as an ally by American officials."

"The Guardian" has a very different take on this. Its Sunday, 25 July 2010 article by Declan Walsh states: "But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred. A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of "rumours, bullshit and second-hand information" and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command."^[28]

The Obama administration, in response to the leaks, re-expressed their long-held doubts about links between Pakistan intelligence agents and Afghan insurgents. An anonymous official said to Al Arabiya, "I don't think anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan.^[22]

Iran[link]

Evidence that Iran provided extensive assistance to the Taliban was also revealed. Coming from sources such as Afghan spies and paid informants, Iranian involvement in Afghanistan steadily widened from 2004 to today and constituted armaments, money, and physical deployment of anti-NATO militants.^[14] Iran denies supporting the militants.^[14]

North Korea[link]

The documents, wrote journalist Jeff Stein of the Washington Post, stated that Hezb-e-Islami party leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Amin al-Haq, a financial advisor to Osama Bin Ladin, both flew to North Korea on 19 November 2005, and purchased remote controlled rockets to be used against American and coalition aircraft. Stein cautioned that he has found no corroborating reports of North Korean involvement in Taliban armaments dealing.^[29]

Civilian casualties[link]

Hundreds of civilians have been wounded or killed by coalition forces in several instances that were not previously revealed.^[5][30][31] The press listed several examples of such previously unreported incidents of civilian injuries and deaths.^[32] David Leigh of The Guardian wrote:

They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as "cheap". The logs refer to sums paid of 100,000 Afghani per corpse, equivalent to about £1,500.^[32]

In one incident, a U.S. patrol machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers.^[33]

On 4 March 2007, in the Shinwar shooting, U.S. Marines opened fire on civilians after witnessing a suicide bombing and supposedly coming under small arms fire. The Guardian reported their actions: "The marines made a frenzied escape [from the scene of the bombing], opening fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway, hitting almost anyone in their way – teenage girls in the fields, motorists in their cars, old men as they walked along the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded." The military report of the incident (written by the same soldiers involved in it) later failed to make any reference to the deaths and injuries and none of the soldiers involved were charged or disciplined.^[34]

On 21 March 2007, CIA paramilitaries fired on a civilian man who was running from them. The man, Shum Khan, was deaf and mute and did not hear their warnings.^[32][35]

In 2007, documents detail how US special forces dropped six 2,000 lb bombs on a compound where they believed a “high-value individual” was hiding, after “ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area”. A senior U.S. commander reported that 150 Taliban had been killed. Locals, however, reported that up to 300 civilians had died.^[36]

On 16 August 2007, Polish troops mortared the village of Nangar Khel, killing five people — including a pregnant woman and her baby — in what The Guardian describes as an apparent revenge attack shortly after experiencing an IED explosion.^[32][37]

According to The Guardian, the logs also detail "how the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date".^[5]

Friendly-fire casualties[link]

A significant number of documents describe unreported or previously misleading friendly fire incidents between Afghan police and army forces, coalition forces, and the U.S. military.

A document dating 3 September 2006 suggests that four Canadian soldiers died in the Panjwaye District of Afghanistan during Operation Medusa, when an American jet dropped a bomb on a building they occupied during the second day of the operation. Seven other Canadian soldiers and one civilian were also reported to have been wounded in the attack.^[38] At the time, the Canadian military reported that the deaths and injuries were caused by a firefight with the Taliban, which it still insists. Michel Drapeau, a former colonel with the Canadian Forces, commented that the document is disturbing, due to it differing from the military's report at the time of the soldiers' deaths, which could make the document incorrect. The Canadian military insists it had not been misleading facts about deaths of Canadian soldiers.^[38][39] Former Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier also rejects the document and maintains the deaths were due to enemy fire,^[40] as do some of the deceased soldiers' families.^[38][41]

A document from 11 June 2007 details an incident where Task Force 373 engaged in a firefight with what were believed to be insurgents. An airstrike was called in, which killed seven Afghan police officers, and injured four others. Nangarhar Province governor Gul Agha Sherzai had labelled the incident a misunderstanding.^[42][43]

Less than 48 hours after the documents were leaked, the UK's Ministry of Defense released a statement^[44] announcing a new friendly fire death in Afghanistan.

"The Ministry of Defense must confirm that the death of this soldier is being investigated as a suspected friendly fire incident."

The Ministry had previously announced^[45] an investigation in to a friendly fire incident in 2009 in Helmand province.

Role of al-Qaeda[link]

The war logs made clear that suicide bombing, normally carried out by non-Afghan, foreign fighters, was increasing and claim that they were nurtured by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, whose influence was pervasive and possibly growing. A report generated September 2004 stated that terrorists had been assigned by Bin Laden to conduct a suicidal attack against the Afghan president Hamid Karzai, during a press conference or a meeting held. Another report, in September 2008, spoke of co-ordinated, multinational al-Qaeda attack planning. More suicide bombings allegedly were planned with al-Qaeda's Afghan allies, such as the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militia led by the notorious warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Numerous reports linked Bin Laden and al-Qaeda to insurgent activities. In one report, al-Qaeda was also claimed to be involved in a plan to manufacture chemical weapons payloads for rocket-propelled grenades.^[46][47]

Role of Special Ops greater than previously revealed[link]

Government accounts of coalition activity were, according to The Guardian, sometimes "misleading". The British paper cited as an example a press statement that concealed the fact that the real reason for a coalition presence in a particular area was because a group known as Task Force 373 was on a mission to kill or capture Abu Laith al-Libi.^[48] The New York Times reported that the U.S. had given Afghans credit for missions actually carried out by Special Operations commandos. The New York Times said "over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war. But in some cases the documents show that the American military made misleading public statements".^[49]

The records log 144 incidents regarding Task Force 373 and involving Afghan civilian casualties, including 195 deaths.^[43]

Detainment facilities and procedures[link]

The leak lends hard numbers such as prisoner head counts and prisoner transfer dates to existing journalistic concerns around certain detainment facilities, such as Bagram Theater Internment Facility, and their practices.^[50]

Taliban use of heat-seeking missiles[link]

The New York Times reported that the documents reveal the Taliban have used heat-seeking missiles to down coalition aircraft. The U.S. military had not previously acknowledged that the Taliban possessed these weapons.^[49]

Informants named[link]

Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives.^[51][52] Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks.^[53] However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.^[54]

On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",^[55] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."^[56]

In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."^[57] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.^[58][59]

Psychological warfare[link]

Evidence within the documents suggest that the U.S. military has been paying Afghan radio and print media to run favorable stories,^[60] with two prominent examples^[60] being Radio Ghaznawiyaan and Wakht News Agency. One document refers to supplying pre-made content to a radio station, describing that content as Psychological Operations/Psychological Warfare (PSYOP) material.^[60]

Insurgent attacks against civilians[link]

The leaked documents describe many purported incidents of Taliban and other Afghan insurgent forces attacking civilians. Those forces would also, according to leaked reports, post 'Night Letters' on civilian buildings such as mosques foretelling death for the inhabitants. In one leak from April 2007, then-Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes requests to verify a video of a 12-year-old child soldier forced to kill a Pakistani hostage. Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, remarked that "the documents demonstrate just how pervasive the Taliban’s brutality is in this fight".^[61]

Child prostitution[link]

The documents revealed that United States Department of Defense private contractor employees hired local male child prostitutes.^[62]

Commentary[link]

Significance of the disclosure[link]

Wikileaks[link]

Wikileaks editor Julian Assange said "it is the most comprehensive history of a war ever to be published, during the course of the war".^[21] He compared the release of the war logs with the release of the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s.^[21][63] In an interview with Der Spiegel, Assange said that he believed the release would "change public opinion", and said that "we understand why it is important to protect certain U.S. and ISAF sources." He added that "the most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped."^[64] Assange also claimed that the files "suggest thousands of war crimes."^[65]

News organisations given advanced access to the documents[link]

[edit] The New York Times

The New York Times described the war logs as "a six-year archive of classified military documents [that] offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war".

On the decision to publish, they stated:

"Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, and after weighing the risks and public interest, we sometimes chose not to publish. But there are times when the information is of significant public interest, and this is one of those times. The documents illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not. Most of the incident reports are marked "secret", a relatively low level of classification. The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests. The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose—either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material—anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations. We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports".^[2]

[edit] The Guardian

The Guardian called the material "one of the biggest leaks in U.S. military history ... a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency".^[5]

The Guardian also reported that Daniel Ellsberg has described the disclosure as on the scale of his leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 revealing how the U.S. public was misled about the Vietnam War.^[66]

[edit] Der Spiegel

Der Spiegel wrote that "the editors in chief of Spiegel, The New York Times and the Guardian were 'unanimous in their belief that there is a justified public interest in the material'".^[1]

Other views[link]

United States military[link]

US Army officials condemned the public dissimination of military secrets and the White House urged the website WikiLeaks to not publish any more classified documents related to the Afghan war.^[67][68] U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that it is up to the Justice Department to determine if there would be criminal charges in the release of classified military documents by WikiLeaks, but the website was "morally guilty for putting lives at risk".^[69]

On 6 August 2010, U.S. military authorities urged Wikileaks to return the already published 70,000 documents, and the other 15,000 records the website was expected to post soon as well, which contained sensitive details of Afghans who had assisted ISAF forces. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said "If doing the right thing is not good enough for them, then we will figure out what alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing."^{[70][71][72][73]} On 7 August 2010, spokesman Daniel Schmitt said that Wikileaks would continue to publish secret files from governments around the world despite the U.S. demands to cancel plans for further release, claiming that this directly contributed to the public's understanding of the conflict and rejecting allegations that the publication was a threat to America's national security or put lives at risk.^[74]

Afghan authorities[link]

According to a statement by Rangin Dadfar Spanta, security advisor of the Afghan government and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, the allies of Afghanistan had failed to pay necessary attention to prevent the support for international terrorism and to eliminate its hideouts and centres that can create a major threat to security and stability in the region. "The content of these documents reveal that Afghanistan has been righteous in its stance about the rise of terrorism and political and military discrepancies in counter-terrorism struggle".^[75]

Council on Foreign Relations[link]

Daniel Markey, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations and former South Asia analyst for the Bush administration, said, "Whether WikiLeaks uncovered anything new isn't actually important – it's on the front page of every newspaper in the country; the media is now focused on Afghanistan, and that makes it a big deal. [...] The public is now more skeptical about the administration's strategy in Afghanistan than they were last week, and that makes it real."^[76]

[edit] Los Angeles Times

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times stated that comparisons to the Pentagon Papers was an exaggeration as the documents lacked the policy implications of the papers, but that "no democracy can or should fight a war without the consent of its people, and that consent is only meaningful if it is predicated on real information".^[77] The LA Times did seem to indicate the documents have parallels with the Pentagon Papers in being published during a subsequent administration "the documents offer insight primarily into the war-fighting of the recently departed George W. Bush administration; the Pentagon Papers ended with the Johnson administration and were not published until Richard Nixon was president."^[77]

[edit] The Washington Post

An Editorial in The Washington Post stated "they hardly provide a secret history of the war or disclose previously unknown malfeasance" and that "tends to fill out and confirm the narrative of Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009 that most Americans are already familiar with."^[78] The Post commented that it hardly merited the media hype and was not comparable to the Pentagon Papers or the MfS files^[78] The editorial argued Wikileaks' founder revealed his organization's antiwar agenda by making the claim it contained evidence for war crimes prosecutions.^[78]

[edit] Foreign Policy

Blake Hounshell wrote in his blog on Foreign Policy that, after reading "selected documents", he believed that there is less new information in the documents than The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel were reporting.^[79] Hounshell indicated how careful both The Guardian and The New York Times were to note "the raw reports in the Wikileaks archive often seem poorly sourced and present implausible information."^[79] Commenting on the significance of the documents:

I'd say that so far the documents confirm what we already know about the war: It's going badly; Pakistan is not the world's greatest ally and is probably playing a double game; coalition forces have been responsible for far too many civilian casualties; and the United States doesn't have very reliable intelligence in Afghanistan.^[79]

Legality of the disclosure[link]

Ann Woolner wrote in an editorial in the Bloomberg publication that Wikileaks' publication of the documents is legally allowed in the United States because the group did not solicit the documents.^[80] Asking someone to leak secret information, "with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States",^[81] would violate the United States' Espionage Act of 1917 In violation of the post-World War I accord signed into law by then President Woodrow Wilson.^[81][82]

Reactions[link]

 EU An official from the European Union has told The Associated Press "that the organization 'wants to stay as far from this as possible.'"^[39]

 Afghanistan While the Afghan government has stated that the majority of the leaked documents did not comprise new information, it has expressed concern over both Pakistan's connection with the Taliban and the United States' involvement in their funding:^{[citation needed]} Siamak Herawi, deputy spokesman for the office of the President,^[83] stated, "There should be serious action taken against the Inter-Services Intelligence, who has a direct connection with the terrorists. These reports show that the U.S. was already aware of the ISI connection with the al Qaeda terrorist network. The United States is overdue on the ISI issue, and now the United States, should answer."^[84]

 Australia Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the Department of Defence will investigate the content of the leaks to examine what the implications are for Australia which had 1,500 troops deployed in Afghanistan.^[85] This investigation concluded in October 2010 and found that the leaked documents "had not had a direct significant adverse impact on Australia's national interests".^[86]

 Canada The Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon said the leak could endanger Canadian troops.^[87] Canada also disputed one of the records, saying it inaccurately described an incident as friendly fire.^[88]

Another document suggests that a Canadian was among the casualties in a helicopter that was destroyed by heat-seeking missiles. The document indicates that the U.S. wanted Canada to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and South Africa, where the U.S. believed Taliban fundraising was taking place.^[39] The documents claim that American diplomats spoke with two senior Canadian Foreign Affairs officials in their appeal for the Canadian government to join the U.S. government in issuing a joint diplomatic rebuke to Saudi Arabia and South Africa. The documents also allege that Canada was asked to rebuke the United Arab Emirates independently over alleged militant fundraising.^[3]

One document suggests that a Canadian C-130 Hercules was hit with an anti-aircraft weapon fired by the Taliban during takeoff. The document states that the C-130's landing gear and some of its fuselage was destroyed by a 14.5 mm round as the aircraft departed from the western province of Farah, with the report stating, "It is unusual that insurgents would engage aircraft in such close proximity to an airfield with a weapon of this caliber." The documents also say that a number of Canadian unmanned drones have crashed and that in one instance, locals removed a vehicle's technology before soldiers could recover it.^[89]

Cannon refused to comment on the documents, saying that they had "nothing to do with Canada" and denied the Canadian government was misleading its citizens on the war in Afghanistan.^[3] New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton said that the documents "undermines the confidence" Canadian citizens have in their government and called on politicians to "get to the bottom of" the situation regarding the friendly fire report.^[40]

 Germany The German government has stated that the documents could place its 4,600 troops in danger, and condemns their release.^[90] During a meeting in Brussels, Guido Westerwelle, the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, has suggested that the entirety should be "carefully examined, to see what possible new revelations there might be".^[91] In general, the government "has shown little alarm over the release of the documents", with a spokesman from the Federal Ministry of Defence stating that there was "nothing newsworthy"; however, opposition party The Greens welcomed the release of the files, with Claudia Roth stating that "[the] Wikileaks documents prove just how dramatic the situation in Afghanistan is", and "show the lengths the allies are prepared to go to in their fight for more stability."^[91]

The Greens also showed distrust in the federal government over the lack of disclosure of U.S. special forces activities in German-controlled areas. Omid Nouripour, the security spokesman for the party, said, "On our reading of the U.S. documents, it is disturbing how little the federal government has informed the parliament about the activities of American special forces in German areas. We demand an immediate explanation from the federal government as to what they know about the missions. We will push with all force for answers."^[90]

 India The Ministry of External Affairs said:^[92]

"We have seen media reports about classified information, supposedly from US government sources, put out in public domain, on support to terrorism by ISI - Pakistan's military intelligence agency. Sponsorship of terrorism, as an instrument of policy, is wholly condemnable and must cease forthwith. The utilisation of territory under Pakistan's control to provide sanctuaries for recruiting and sustaining terrorist groups, and to direct terrorist activity against neighbors, must stop if our region is to attain its full potential for peaceful development."

 Pakistan Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari announced via spokesman Farhatullah Babar that allegations about ISI's involvement "have been regurgitated in the past. Also, these represent low-level intelligence reports and do not represent a convincing smoking gun. I do not see any convincing evidence." The spokesman continued rhetorically, asking if "those who are alleging that Pakistan is playing a double game are also asserting that President Zardari is presiding over an apparatus that is coordinating attacks on the general headquarters, mosques, shrines, schools and killing Pakistani citizens?"^[93] Pakistan's ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani on Sunday denounced the leak of secret files calling them as “irresponsible,” saying it consisted of “unprocessed” reports from the field. “The documents circulated by Wikileaks do not reflect the current onground realities,” he said in a statement.^[94]

A senior ISI official denied the allegations, saying they were from raw intelligence reports that had not been verified and were meant to impugn the reputation of the spy agency. He spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the agency's policy. Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul, who headed the agency in the late 1980s when Pakistan and the U.S. were supporting militants in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, denied the allegations that he was working with the Taliban, saying "these leaked documents against me are fiction and nothing else."^[95]

Politicians and defence analysts critically commented on leaks and the western media in using the ISI card while not highlighting most of the civilian casualties resulting from bombing of NATO forces like how U.S. special forces dropped six 2,000 lb bombs on a compound where they believed a “high-value individual” was hiding, after “ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area”. In fact, up to 300 civilians had died in those attacks.^[36]

 United Kingdom On July 28, Britain announced that it would launch two new inquiries into the country's role in the war. A committee member said the launching of the inquiries had nothing to do with the Wikileaks documents.^[96]

 United States National Security Advisor James L. Jones and Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, both condemned Wikileaks for an "irresponsible" disclosure.^[97] White House National Security Advisor James Jones issued a statement to reporters shortly before the documents were posted online, saying the leaks were “irresponsible” but would not impact U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," he said in his statement, "These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people."^[98]

• Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes stated that "[since] taking office, President Obama has been very clear and candid with the American people about the challenges that we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. [...] It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009. The war in Afghanistan was under-resourced for many years. [...] On Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy and new resources for Afghanistan and Pakistan precisely because of the grave situation there," and that they "strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations that put the lives of the U.S. and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security."^[1][99]
• Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) of Ohio said "These documents provide a fuller picture of what we have long known about Afghanistan: The war is going badly. We have to show the ability to respond to what’s right in front of our face: This war is no longer justifiable under any circumstances."^[100] Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Senator John Kerry (Democrat) of Massachusetts said "However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent."^[100] In a later release he was quoted as saying "All of us [are] concerned that after nine years of war ... the Taliban appear to be as strong as they have been."^[101]

Taliban spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, has stated they are inspecting the leaked documents which contain the names, tribes, and family information of Afghan informants who were helping the US. "We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces," he said. "We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them."^[102] This statement comes after the Taliban has recently begun intimidating and brutally executing those who cooperate with NATO forces.^[103]

Reactions of human rights groups[link]

A coalition of five human-rights organizations addressed Julian Assange, founder and editor of the Wikileaks website, expressing their concerns for the safety of persons identified in the published documents. These human-rights groups were Amnesty International, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), Open Society Institute (OSI), the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Kabul office of the International Crisis Group (ICG), all worried about the execution of Afghan civilians by the Taliban and other insurgent groups. The AIHRC published figures showing that executions had soared in the first seven months of 2010 to 197, from a total of 225 in all of 2009. The victims were often persons who supported the Afghan government, or their family members, who may have come into contact with the U.S. or other international forces.^{[104][105][106][107][108][109]}

On 12 August 2010, the international press watchdog organisation Reporters Without Borders (RWB) accused WikiLeaks of "incredible irresponsibility" after the website said it "absolutely" would release the remaining 15,000 documents. In an open letter to Assange, Jean-François Julliard, RWB secretary-general, and Clothilde Le Coz, RWB representative in Washington DC, wrote that the publication was "highly dangerous," particularly when it named Afghan informants.^{[110][111][112][113][114]}

Source of the leak[link]

Wikileaks says it does not know the source of the leaked data. Editor-in-chief Julian Assange stated that "Our whole system is designed such that we don't have to keep that secret."^[15] The Pentagon has launched an inquiry.^[115][116] Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, said that investigators are looking broadly to determine who leaked the material to Wikileaks. He said that Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst, is someone that they are "looking at closely".^[117] Manning is currently facing charges for allegedly leaking the 12 July 2007, Baghdad airstrike video Wikileaks released as “Collateral Murder”. That video was made public through WikiLeaks, along with many diplomatic cables, but war logs were not specifically among the charges.^{[118][119][120]}

"Insurance file"[link]

On 30 July, a few days after the initial disclosure, media began to report that Wikileaks had released an additional file named "insurance.aes256" in connection with the Afghan War Diary disclosure. The new "insurance file" was AES-256 encrypted, 1.4 GB in size, with a timestamp of 31 December 2010 6:00 PM, and with a SHA1 checksum of "cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c".^[4] It is also available at the Internet Archive.^[121][122]

At 1.4 gigabytes, that file was 20 times larger than the batch of 77,000 secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks already published, and cryptographers said that the file was virtually impossible to crack, unless WikiLeaks releases the key used to encode the material.^{[4][123][124][125][126]}

See also[link]

	Afghanistan portal
	Government of the United States portal
	Internet portal

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikinews has related news: Wikileaks release Afghan "war logs" in co-operation with mainstream media

• Kabul War Diary WikiLeaks.
• Afghan War Diary at the old WikiLeaks site. Archived on 2 May 2012.
• Archive by the Internet Archive
• Afghanistan: The War Logs The Guardian
• The War Logs The New York Times
• The Afghanistan Protocol Der Spiegel
• HTML, CSV and SQL at the Internet Archive
• Warlogs browsing interface OWNI
• Interview with Julian Assange Channel 4
• Wikileaks press conference on the war logs
• Wikileaks Disclosures: The Dirty Truth about the War Qantara.de, August 19 2010

The terms Afghan War or War in Afghanistan may refer to:

• Conquest of Afghanistan by Alexander the Great (330 BCE–327 BCE)
• Islamic conquest of Afghanistan (637–709)
• Conquest of Afghanistan by the Mongol Empire (13th century), see Mongol invasion of Central Asia
• A number of wars involving the Mughal Empire and Durrani Empires.

• Anglo-Afghan Wars (First British involvement with Afghanistan):
  • First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–1842)
  • Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878–1881)
• Panjdeh Incident (1885)
  • Third Anglo-Afghan War (1919)

• Reforms of Amanullah Khan and civil war, 1929 civil war when Habibullah Ghazi briefly overthrew the government and became emir

• War in Afghanistan (1978–present):
  • Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989) – Soviet involvement
  • Afghan Civil War (1989–1992) – Government collapse
  • Afghan Civil War (1992–1996) – Anarchy
  • Afghan Civil War (1996–2001) – Taliban period
  • War in Afghanistan (2001–present) – ISAF/NATO involvement

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Julian Assange
Assange in Copenhagen
Born	(1971-07-03) 3 July 1971 (age 40)[1][2][3] Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Nationality	Australian
Occupation	Editor-in-chief and spokesperson for WikiLeaks, talk show host
Awards	Economist Freedom of Expression Award (2008) Amnesty International UK Media Award (2009) Sam Adams Award (2010) Le Monde Person of the Year (2010) Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal (2011) Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism (2011) Voltaire Award of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties (2011) Walkleys Award for Outstanding Contribution to Journalism (2011)

Julian Paul Assange ( /əˈsɒnʒ/ ə-SONZH; born 3 July 1971) is an Australian computer programmer, political/internet activist, publisher, and^[4][5] journalist.^[6][7][8] He is best known as the editor in chief and founder of WikiLeaks, a media website which publishes information from whistleblowers. The site acts as a conduit for worldwide news leaks, with a stated purpose of creating open governance.

WikiLeaks has published material about extrajudicial killings in Kenya, toxic waste dumping in Côte d'Ivoire, Church of Scientology manuals, Guantanamo Bay procedures, and banks such as Kaupthing and Julius Baer.^[9] In 2010, WikiLeaks published Iraq War documents and Afghan War documents about American involvement in the wars, some of which was classified material. On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and its five international print media partners (Der Spiegel, The New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and El País) began publishing U.S. diplomatic cables.^[10]

Assange was a hacker-activist in his youth, before becoming a computer programmer and then becoming internationally renowned for his work with WikiLeaks.^[11] He has lived in several countries and has made public appearances in many parts of the world to speak about freedom of the press, censorship, and investigative journalism. He has received numerous awards and nominations, including the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award, Readers' Choice for TIME magazine's 2010 Person of the Year, the 2011 Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal and the 2011 Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism.^[12] Snorre Valen, a Norwegian parliamentarian, nominated him for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.^[13]

In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in relation to allegations of rape and sexual assault by two women in Sweden. Assange was arrested and after ten days in Wandsworth prison was freed on bail. On 30 May 2012 Assange lost his final Supreme Court appeal in England to avoid extradition to Sweden.^[14]

Early life[link]

Assange was born in Townsville, Queensland.^[15][16] When Julian was one year old, his mother Christine married theatre director Brett Assange, "who gave him his surname".^[2][17][18] In 1976, the family moved to Magnetic Island where Christine had previously resided. They lived in Horseshoe Bay, in an old abandoned pineapple farm".^[19] Later Assange and his mother lived in a cottage at Picnic Bay. His mother, Christine Ann Assange (née Hawkins)^[15], was the daughter of Australian Army Veteran, Academic and Principal of Northern Rivers College (Southern Cross University), Dr. Warren Alfred Hawkins, who was born in Sydney, New South Wales, and Norma Joan Hawkins (née Carelton), who "was a specialist in medieval literature".^{[20][21][22][23][24][25]} Norma Hawkins, Assange's maternal grandmother, is mentioned in the book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier (1997).^[26] Assange has reportedly claimed himself that he is of Scottish, Irish, Taiwanese, Torres Strait Islander and French ancestry: he has said that "his maternal ancestors came to Australia in the mid-nineteenth century from Scotland and Ireland"; he has also said: "my mother is French", referring to her ancestry. Referring to his paternal grandfather: "my grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate".."who settled on Thursday Island where he met and married a Thursday Islander woman". He has also said that Brett Assange "was the descendant of a Chinese immigrant who had settled on Thursday Island", "his great-great-great-grandfather was a Taiwanese pirate". The name Assange is an anglicization of "Ah Sang" – Cantonese for "Mr Sang".^{[27][28][29][30]}

In the interview for Making Trouble, he tells about who he believes is his "biological father": "he did not meet his biological father, John Shipton, until he was 25", Manne writes; "strangely and perhaps revealingly, it [WikiLeaks] was registered under the names of two fathers, his biological one, John Shipton, and his cypherpunk political one, John Young, a New York architect who ran the intelligence leak website Cryptome, which could be seen as WikiLeaks' predecessor".^{[22][31][32][33]} John Shipton is also referred to as an "architect", and an "Australian citizen living in Kenya", who resided in Nairobi, Kenya in 2008 at the same time as Julian.^[34][35][36] He "met Assange's mother, Christine, then aged 17, at an antiques shop on his way to a Vietnam war demonstration".."little is known about the relationship, except that it had ended by the time of their son's first birthday – if not earlier"; Shipton "never took up residence or if he did only took up residence for a very short time" and "had no contact with [Assange]".^[37]

Youth[link]

During Assange's upbringing Brett and Christine Assange ran a touring theatre company. His stepfather, Julian's first "real dad", described Julian as "a very sharp kid" with "a keen sense of right and wrong". "He always stood up for the underdog ... he was always very angry about people ganging up on other people."^[18] In the mid-70's, Assange and his parents moved to North Lismore, New South Wales, and Assange attended Goolmangar Primary School in the nearby town of Goolmangar from 1979 to 1983.^[38]

In 1979, his mother remarried "Leif Meynall — or Leif Hamilton";^[39] her new husband was a musician whom Assange believed belonged to a New Age group called The Family, led by Yoga teacher Anne Hamilton-Byrne. The couple had a son, but broke up in 1982 and engaged in a custody struggle for Assange's half-brother. His divorced mother fled her boyfriend and travelled across Australia, taking both children into hiding for the next five years. Assange moved thirty times before he turned 14, attending many schools, including Goolmangar Primary School, sometimes being home-schooled.^[2][40][41] In an interview conducted by Hans Ulrich Obrist, Assange stated that he had lived in 50 different towns and attended 37 different schools.^[42] The family "by the time he was 16 or 17" lived in "a tiny cement bungalow in the foothills of the Dandenong Ranges, east of Melbourne", Victoria, first in the town of "Emerald and then Tecoma", now in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne.^[43][44]

Hacking and conviction[link]

In 1987, after turning 16, Assange began hacking under the name "Mendax" (derived from a phrase of Horace: "splendide mendax", or "nobly untruthful").^[2] He and two other hackers joined to form a group they named the International Subversives. Assange wrote down the early rules of the subculture: "Don't damage computer systems you break into (including crashing them); don't change the information in those systems (except for altering logs to cover your tracks); and share information".^[2] The Personal Democracy Forum said he was "Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker."^[45] The Australian Federal Police became aware of this group and set up "Operation Weather" to investigate their hacking. In September 1991, Mendax was discovered in the act of hacking into the Melbourne master terminal of Nortel, the Canadian telecommunications company.^[2] In response the Australian Federal Police tapped Assanges' phoneline and subsequently raided his Melbourne home in 1991.^[46] He was also reported to have accessed computers belonging to an Australian university,^[2] the USAF 7th Command Group in the Pentagon^[47] and other organisations, via modem.^[48] It took three years to bring the case to court, where he was charged with 31 counts of hacking and related crimes. Nortel said his incursions cost them more than $100,000. Assange's lawyers represented his hacking as a victimless crime. He pleaded guilty to 25 charges of hacking, after six charges were dropped, and was released on bond for good conduct with a fine of A$2,100.^[2][49] The judge said "there is just no evidence that there was anything other than sort of intelligent inquisitiveness and the pleasure of being able to—what's the expression—surf through these various computers"^[2] and stated that Assange would have gone to jail for up to 10 years if he had not had such a disrupted childhood.^[47]

In 2011, court records revealed that in 1993, Assange helped the Victoria Police Child Exploitation Unit by providing technical advice and assisted in prosecuting persons.^[50]

Child custody issues[link]

In 1988–1989, Assange married, then moved out and started living with his wife, Teresa, after they had a son, Daniel Assange.^[22][51] They split up before the period of Assange's arrest and conviction. They subsequently engaged in a lengthy custody struggle and did not agree on a custody arrangement until 1999.^[2][52]

The entire process prompted Assange and his mother to form Parent Inquiry Into Child Protection, an activist group centered on creating a "central databank" for otherwise inaccessible legal records related to child custody issues in Australia.^[52] In an interview with ABC Radio, his mother explained their "most important" issue was demanding "that there be direct access to the children's court by any member of the public for an application for protection for any child that they believe is at serious risk from abuse, where the child protection agency has rejected that notification."^[53]

Computer programming and other employment[link]

In 1993, Assange was involved in starting one of the first public internet service providers in Australia, Suburbia Public Access Network.^[4][54][55] Starting in 1994, he lived in Melbourne as a programmer and a developer of free software.^[49] In 1995, he wrote Strobe, the first free and open source port scanner.^[56][57] He contributed several patches to the PostgreSQL project in 1996.^[58][59] He helped to write the book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier (1997), which credits him as a researcher and reports his history with International Subversives.^[26][60] Starting around 1997, he co-invented the Rubberhose deniable encryption system, a cryptographic concept made into a software package for Linux designed to provide plausible deniability against rubber-hose cryptanalysis;^[61] he originally intended the system to be used "as a tool for human rights workers who needed to protect sensitive data in the field."^[62] Other free software that he has authored or co-authored includes the Usenet caching software NNTPCache^[63] and Surfraw, a command-line interface for web-based search engines. In 1998, "Assange co-founded his first and only Australian company, Earthmen Technology".^[19] Assange was characterised as a "cryptographer" in a Suelette Dreyfus article published in The Independent, 15 November 1999 – "This is just between us (and the spies)", and was said to have been the moderator of "the online Australian discussion forum AUCRYPTO", and during this time Assange claimed to have found a new patent relating to the US National Security Agency's technology for monitoring calls, "while investigating NSA capabilities". Assange said that "this patent should worry people. Everyone's overseas phone calls are or may soon be tapped, transcribed and archived in the bowels of an unaccountable foreign spy agency".^[64] In 1999, he registered the domain leaks.org, but he says he "didn't do anything with it."^[65]

University studies[link]

From 2002 to 2005, Assange attended the University of Melbourne and University of Canberra as an undergraduate student, he started a Bachelors of Science degree, studying physics, pure mathematics, and briefly philosophy and neuroscience.^{[40][45][66][67]} In most of his maths courses, he received the minimum "pass" grade.^[68] He did not graduate; the fact that his fellow students were doing research for Pentagon's DARPA was reportedly a factor in motivating him to drop out and start WikiLeaks.^[2][40][67]

Career as head of WikiLeaks[link]

Assange, in or before 2006

WikiLeaks was founded in 2006.^[2][69] That year, Assange wrote two essays setting out the philosophy behind WikiLeaks: "To radically shift regime behaviour we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not."^[70][71][72] In his blog he wrote, "the more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie.... Since unjust systems, by their nature, induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance."^[70][73]

Assange is the most prominent media spokesman on WikiLeaks' behalf. In June 2010, he was listed alongside several others as a member of the WikiLeaks advisory board.^[74][75] While newspapers have described him as a "director"^[76] or "founder"^[46] of WikiLeaks, Assange has said, "I don't call myself a founder";^[77] he does describe himself as the editor in chief of WikiLeaks,^[78] and has stated that he has the final decision in the process of vetting documents submitted to the site.^[79] Assange says that WikiLeaks has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined: "That's not something I say as a way of saying how successful we are – rather, that shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media. How is it that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined? It's disgraceful."^[69] He advocates a "transparent" and "scientific" approach to journalism, saying that "you can't publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism."^[80][81] In 2006, CounterPunch called him "Australia's most infamous former computer hacker."^[82] The Age has called him "one of the most intriguing people in the world" and "internet's freedom fighter."^[65] Assange has called himself "extremely cynical".^[65] He has been described as being largely self-taught and widely read on science and mathematics,^[49] and as thriving on intellectual battle.^[83]

WikiLeaks has been involved in the publication of material documenting extrajudicial killings in Kenya, a report of toxic waste dumping on the coast of Côte d'Ivoire, Church of Scientology manuals, Guantanamo Bay procedures, the 12 July 2007 Baghdad airstrike video, and material involving large banks such as Kaupthing and Julius Baer among other documents.^[9] In 2008, Assange published an article entitled "The Hidden Curse of Thomas Paine", in which he wrote "What does it mean when only those facts about the world with economic powers behind them can be heard, when the truth lays naked before the world and no one will be the first to speak without payment or subsidy?"^[84]

Public appearances[link]

In addition to exercising great authority and editorial control within WikiLeaks, Assange acts as its public face. He has appeared at media conferences such as New Media Days '09 in Copenhagen,^[85] the 2010 Logan Symposium in Investigative Reporting at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism,^[86] and at hacker conferences, notably the 25th and 26th Chaos Communication Congress.^[87] In the first half of 2010, he appeared on Al Jazeera English, MSNBC, Democracy Now!, RT, and The Colbert Report to discuss the release of the Baghdad airstrike video by WikiLeaks. On 3 June he appeared via videoconferencing at the Personal Democracy Forum conference with Daniel Ellsberg.^[88][89] Ellsberg told MSNBC "the explanation he [Assange] used" for not appearing in person in the U.S. was that "it was not safe for him to come to this country."^[90] On 11 June he was to appear on a Showcase Panel at the Investigative Reporters and Editors conference in Las Vegas,^[91] but there are reports that he cancelled several days prior.^[92]

On 10 June 2010, it was reported that Pentagon officials were trying to determine his whereabouts.^[93][94] Based on this, there were reports that U.S. officials wanted to apprehend Assange.^[95] Ellsberg said that the arrest of Bradley Manning and subsequent speculation by U.S. officials about what Assange may be about to publish "puts his well-being, his physical life, in some danger now."^[90] In The Atlantic, Marc Ambinder called Ellsberg's concerns "ridiculous", and said that "Assange's tendency to believe that he is one step away from being thrown into a black hole hinders, and to some extent discredits, his work."^[96] In Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald questioned "screeching media reports" that there was a "manhunt" on Assange underway, arguing that they were only based on comments by "anonymous government officials" and might even serve a campaign by the U.S. government, by intimidating possible whistleblowers.

On 21 June 2010, he took part at a hearing in Brussels, Belgium, appearing in public for the first time in nearly a month.^[97] He was a member on a panel that discussed Internet censorship and expressed his worries over the recent filtering in countries such as Australia. He also talked about secret gag orders preventing newspapers from publishing information about specific subjects and even divulging the fact that they are being gagged. Using an example involving The Guardian, he also explained how newspapers are altering their online archives sometimes by removing entire articles.^[98][99] He told The Guardian that he does not fear for his safety but is on permanent alert and will avoid travel to America, saying "[U.S.] public statements have all been reasonable. But some statements made in private are a bit more questionable." He said "politically it would be a great error for them to act. I feel perfectly safe but I have been advised by my lawyers not to travel to the U.S. during this period."^[97]

On 17 July, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the 2010 Hackers on Planet Earth (HOPE) conference in New York City, replacing Assange due to the presence of federal agents at the conference.^[100][101] He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again up and running, after it had been temporarily suspended.^[100][102] Assange was a surprise speaker at a TED conference on 19 July 2010, in Oxford, and confirmed that WikiLeaks was now accepting submissions again.^{[103][104][105]} On 26 July, after the release of the Afghan War Diary, he appeared at the Frontline Club for a press conference.^[106]

On 14 February 2011, Assange filed for the trademark "JULIAN ASSANGE" in Europe. The trademark is to be used for "public speaking services; news reporter services; journalism; publication of texts other than publicity texts; education services; entertainment services".^[107] On 15 March 2011, Assange gave a speech at the Cambridge Union Society.^[108][109] After initially discouraging recording, a video of this has been made available by the Society.^[110]

On 19 February 2012 the 500th episode of The Simpsons' "At Long Last Leave" was aired, which features Assange guest-starring as himself in a scene written by Australian author Kathy Lette, the wife of Assange's adviser Geoffrey Robertson QC.^[111][112]

Release of U.S. diplomatic cables[link]

On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing some of the 251,000 American diplomatic cables in their possession, of which over 53 percent are listed as unclassified, 40 percent are "Confidential" and just over six percent are classified "Secret". The following day, the Attorney-General of Australia, Robert McClelland, told the press that Australia would inquire into Assange's activities and WikiLeaks.^[113] He said that "from Australia's point of view, we think there are potentially a number of criminal laws that could have been breached by the release of this information. The Australian Federal Police are looking at that".^[114] McClelland would not rule out the possibility that Australian authorities will cancel Assange's passport, and warned him that he might face charges should he return to Australia.^[115] The Federal Police inquiry found that Assange had not committed any crime.^[116]

The United States Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation related to the leak. U.S. prosecutors are reportedly considering charges against Assange under several laws, but any prosecution would be difficult.^[117] In relation to its ongoing investigations of WikiLeaks, on 14 December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a subpoena ordering Twitter to release information relating to Assange's account, amongst others.^[118][119]

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that Assange "is serving our democracy and serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases, in this country." On the issue of national security considerations for the U.S., Ellsberg added, "He's obviously a very competent guy in many ways. I think his instincts are that most of this material deserves to be out. We are arguing over a very small fragment that doesn't. He has not yet put out anything that hurt anybody's national security."^[120] Assange told London reporters that the leaked cables showed U.S. ambassadors around the world were ordered "to engage in espionage behaviour", which he said seemed to be "representative of a gradual shift to a lack of rule of law in U.S. institutions that needs to be exposed and that we have been exposing."^[121]

The WikiLeaks diplomatic cable revelations have been credited by some commentators with being a factor in sparking the Tunisian Revolution, as such leaked cables revealed the degree of corruption in the then ruling government. Writing for Foreign Policy magazine, journalist Elizabeth Dickinson suggested that "Tunisians didn't need any more reasons to protest when they took to the streets these past weeks – food prices were rising, corruption was rampant, and unemployment was staggering. But we might also count Tunisia as the first time that WikiLeaks pushed people over the brink..."^[122][123]

Recognition as a journalist[link]

Assange received the 2009 Media award from Amnesty International for Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances,^[8] and he has been recognized as a journalist by the Centre for Investigative Journalism.^[7] Assange has been a member of the Australian journalist union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance, for several years, and in 2011, was made an honorary member.^[124][125] Alex Massie wrote an article in The Spectator called "Yes, Julian Assange is a journalist", but acknowledged that "newsman" might be a better description of Assange.^[6] Alan Dershowitz said "Without a doubt. He is a journalist, a new kind of journalist".^[126] Assange has said that he has been publishing factual material since age 25, and that it is not necessary to debate whether or not he is a journalist. He has stated that his role is "primarily that of a publisher and editor-in-chief who organises and directs other journalists".^[127]

Financial developments[link]

On 6 December 2010, the Swiss bank, PostFinance, announced that it had frozen assets of Assange's totalling 31,000 euros, because he had "provided false information regarding his place of residence" when opening the account.^[128] MasterCard,^[129] Visa Inc.,^[130] and Bank of America^[131] also halted dealings with WikiLeaks. Assange described these actions as "business McCarthyism".^[132] The English-language Swedish newspaper web-site "Local" quoted Assange on 27 December 2010, as saying that legal costs for the whistleblowing website and his own defence had reached £500,000. The decisions to halt donations to WikiLeaks by Visa, MasterCard and PayPal had cost £425,000, the same amount it costs the website to publish for six months. Assange said WikiLeaks had been receiving as much as £85,000 a day at its peak, before the financial blockade^[133]

"Autobiography"[link]

In December 2010, Assange sold the publishing rights^[134] to his proposed autobiography for over £1 million. He told The Sunday Times that he was forced to enter the deals for an autobiography due to the financial difficulties he and the site encountered, stating "I don't want to write this book, but I have to. I have already spent £200,000 for legal costs and I need to defend myself and to keep WikiLeaks afloat."^[135]

A draft of this work was published, without Assange's consent, in September 2011. The book was ghostwritten by Andrew O'Hagan and was given the title Julian Assange – The Unauthorised Autobiography (2011). Assange and the publisher, Canongate, gave differing accounts of the circumstances around the publication.^[136][137]

The World Tomorrow[link]

In January 2012, WikiLeaks announced that Assange would launch "a series of in-depth conversations with key political players, thinkers and revolutionaries from around the world", titled The World Tomorrow.^[138] The first of twelve completed interview programs was broadcast by the state-run^[139] RT network on 17 April with other networks expected to follow. The series will be broadcast on a weekly basis, and the 26-minute episodes will also be made available online.^[140][141] The show's first guest was Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah.^[142][143]

Commentary[link]

Comments by the Australian government[link]

The publication of Australian government briefings after a Senate request showed the government had privately discussed charging Assange with treason, which they never mentioned publicly.^[144] Julia Gillard stated that Assange's actions were "illegal", which was later retracted when a Australian Federal Police commission determined he had not broken any Australian laws. They also found no grounds to withdraw his Australian passport after an investigation by the Australian Federal Police. Since then, government representatives and the major opposition, including Craig Emerson the Minister for Trade and Helen Coonan the former minister for Communications, have made statements supportive of WikiLeaks and deprecated some threats. Emerson stated on ABC's Q&A program; "We condemn absolutely the threats that have been made by some people in the United States against Julian Assange and he deserves all of the rights of being an Australian citizen."^[145]

Support from Australians[link]

Demonstration in support of Assange in front of Sydney Town Hall, 10 December 2010.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has come under widespread condemnation and a backlash within her own party for failing to support Assange after calling the leaks "an illegal act" and suggesting that his Australian passport should be cancelled. Hundreds of lawyers, academics and journalists came forward in his support with Attorney-General Robert McClelland, unable to explain how Assange had broken Australian law. Opposition Legal Affairs spokesman, Senator George Brandis, a Queen's Counsel, accused Gillard of being "clumsy" with her language, stating, "As far as I can see, he (Assange) hasn't broken any Australian law, nor does it appear he has broken any American laws." Former Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, who supports Assange, stated that any decision to cancel the passport would be his, not Gillard's. Queen's Counsel Peter Faris, who acted for Assange in a hacking case 15 years ago, said that the motives of Swedish authorities in seeking Assange's extradition for alleged sex offences are suspect: "You have to say: why are they [Sweden] pursuing it? It's pretty obvious that if it was Bill Bloggs, they wouldn't be going to the trouble." Following the Swedish Embassy issuing of a "prepared and unconvincing reply" in response to letters of protest, Gillard was called on to send a message to Sweden "querying the way charges were laid, investigated and dropped, only to be picked up again by a different prosecutor."^{[146][147][148][149][150]}

On 10 December 2010, over five hundred people rallied outside Sydney Town Hall and about three hundred and fifty people gathered in Brisbane^[151] where Assange's lawyer, Rob Stary, criticised Julia Gillard's position, telling the rally that the Australian government was a "sycophant" of the U.S. A petition circulated by GetUp!, who have placed full page ads in support of Assange in The New York Times and The Washington Times, received more than 50,000 signatures.^[149]

Detraction by U.S. officials[link]

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (September 2011)

Current and former U.S. government officials have accused Assange of terrorism. When asked if he saw Assange more as a high-tech terrorist or as a whistleblower, like those who released the Pentagon papers in the 1970s, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said: "I would argue it is closer to being a high-tech terrorist than the Pentagon papers."^[152] In May 2010, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had used the phrase, calling Assange "a high-tech terrorist", and saying "he has done enormous damage to our country. I think he needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law".^[153] Also in May 2010, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said: "Information terrorism, which leads to people getting killed, is terrorism, and Julian Assange is engaged in terrorism. He should be treated as an enemy combatant."^[154]

In July 2010, after WikiLeaks released classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mike Mullen, said at a Pentagon news conference, "Disagree with the war all you want, take issue with the policy, challenge me or our ground commanders on the decisions we make to accomplish the mission we've been given, but don't put those who willingly go into harm's way even further in harm's way just to satisfy your need to make a point. Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family." Assange responded later in an interview by saying, "There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that". Assange also pointed out the irony of U.S. officials and military leaders accusing him of having blood on his hands.^[155]

Support in U.S.[link]

Daniel Ellsberg, who was working in the U.S. Department of Defense when he leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971, was a signatory to a statement by an international group of former intelligence officers and ex-government officials in support of Assange's work, which was released in late December 2010. Other signatories included David MacMichael, Ray McGovern, and five recipients of annual Sam Adams Award: Frank Grevil, Katharine Gun, Craig Murray, Coleen Rowley and Larry Wilkerson.^[156] Ellsberg has said, "If I released the Pentagon Papers today, the same rhetoric and the same calls would be made about me ... I would be called not only a traitor – which I was [called] then, which was false and slanderous – but I would be called a terrorist... Assange and Bradley Manning are no more terrorists than I am."^[157]

Support from other governments and U.N.[link]

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, then president of Brazil, expressed his "solidarity" with Assange following his 2010 arrest in the United Kingdom.^[158][159] He further criticised the arrest of Assange as "an attack on freedom of expression".^[160]

Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister of Russia, condemned Assange's detention as "undemocratic".^[146] A source within the office of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that Assange be nominated for a Nobel Prize, and said that "Public and non-governmental organisations should think of how to help him."^[161]

In December 2010, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Frank LaRue, said Assange or other WikiLeaks staff should not face criminal charges for any information they disseminated, noting that "if there is a responsibility by leaking information it is of, exclusively of the person that made the leak and not of the media that publish it. And this is the way that transparency works and that corruption has been confronted in many cases."^[162]

Awards[link]

He won the 2009 Amnesty International UK Media Award (New Media),^[163] for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya by distributing and publicizing the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights (KNCHR)'s investigation The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances.^[164][165] Accepting the award, Assange said, "It is a reflection of the courage and strength of Kenyan civil society that this injustice was documented."^[166]

In 2010, Assange was awarded the Sam Adams Award,^[167][168] Readers' Choice in TIME magazine's Person of the Year poll,^[12] and runner-up for Person of the Year.^[169] In April 2011 he was listed on the Time 100 list of most influential people.^[170] An informal poll of editors at Postmedia Network named him the top newsmaker for the year after six out of 10 felt Assange had "affected profoundly how information is seen and delivered".^[171]

Le Monde, one of the five publications to cooperate with WikiLeaks' publication of the recent document leaks, named him person of the year with fifty six percent of the votes in their online poll.^{[172][173][174]}

In February 2011, it was announced that Assange had been awarded the Sydney Peace Foundation gold medal by the Sydney Peace Foundation of the University of Sydney for his "exceptional courage and initiative in pursuit of human rights."^[175] There have been four recipients of the award in the foundation's fourteen year history: Nelson Mandela; the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso; Daisaku Ikeda; and Assange.^[175]

In June 2011, Assange was awarded the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. The prize is awarded on an annual basis to journalists "whose work has penetrated the established version of events and told an unpalatable truth that exposes establishment propaganda, or 'official drivel'". The judges said, "WikiLeaks has been portrayed as a phenomenon of the hi-tech age, which it is. But it's much more. Its goal of justice through transparency is in the oldest and finest tradition of journalism."^[176]

Allegations of sexual molestation[link]

In 2010, a European Arrest Warrant was issued for Assange in response to a Swedish police request for questioning in relation to a sexual assault investigation. Assange voluntarily attended a police station in England on 7 December 2010, and was arrested and taken into custody. After ten days in Wandsworth prison, Assange was freed on bail with a residence requirement at Ellingham Hall in Norfolk, England, fitted with an electronic tag and ordered to report to police daily. Assange appealed a February 2011 decision by English courts to extradite him to Sweden, saying the allegations were "without basis".^[177][178] On 2 November 2011 the High Court upheld the extradition decision and rejected all four grounds of appeal presented by Assange's legal representatives. Costs of £19000 were also awarded against Assange.

On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into allegations concerning Assange's behaviour in separate sexual encounters involving two different women.^[179][180] Assange has said the allegations are "without basis",^[181] describing all the sexual encounters as consensual.^[182][183] In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning.

According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body.^[184][185]

An extradition hearing took place on 7–8 and 11 February 2011 before the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court^[186][187] when the extradition warrant was upheld.^{[188][189][190][191]}

On 2 March 2011, his lawyers lodged papers at the High Court challenging the ruling to extradite Assange to Sweden.^[192] After a hearing on 12 and 13 July 2011, the High Court reserved its judgment, and on 2 November 2011, dismissed his appeal.^[193] On 5 December 2011 Assange's lawyers were granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, after the High Court certified that a point of law of general public importance, that ought to be considered by the Supreme Court, was involved in its decision.^[194] The certified question is whether a prosecutor can be a judicial authority.^[195][196] The Supreme Court heard argument in the appeal on 1 and 2 February 2012.^[197] and reserved its judgment, ^[198] while Assange remained on conditional bail.^[192][199] On 30 May 2012 the court dismissed the appeal by a majority of 5–2.^[200] The court granted Assange two weeks to make an application to reopen the appeal on the basis that the judgments of the majority relied on an interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which was not argued during the hearing.^[201]

Residency[link]

Though an Australian citizen, Assange has not lived in Australia since he left after he started work on WikiLeaks.^[5] In 2007 Assange moved to Kenya. Since 2007, he also spent time in Tanzania, stayed in Cairo, Egypt for a week,^[202] Paris, France, Wiesbaden, Germany for two months,^[203] and also Iceland.^{[204][205][206]} He began renting a house in Iceland on 30 March 2010, from which he and other activists, including Birgitta Jónsdóttir, worked on the Collateral Murder video.^[2]

Over the course of 2009–2010 he travelled around Europe, including the United Kingdom, Iceland, Sweden, Austria, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Germany and Spain.^{[207][208][209]} On 4 November 2010, Assange told Swiss public television TSR that he was seriously considering seeking political asylum in neutral Switzerland and moving the operation of the WikiLeaks foundation there.^[210] In December 2010, it was reported that U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland Donald S. Beyer had warned the Swiss government against offering asylum to Assange, citing the arrest warrant issued by Interpol.^[211]

In late November 2010, Kintto Lucas, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Ecuador, spoke about giving Assange residency with "no conditions... so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just over the Internet but in a variety of public forums".^[212] Lucas believed that Ecuador may benefit from initiating a dialogue with Assange.^[213] Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño stated on 30 November that the residency application would "have to be studied from the legal and diplomatic perspective".^[214] A few hours later, President Rafael Correa stated that WikiLeaks "committed an error by breaking the laws of the United States and leaking this type of information... no official offer was [ever] made."^[215][216] Correa noted that Lucas was speaking "on his own behalf"; additionally, he will launch an investigation into possible ramifications Ecuador would suffer from the release of the cables.^[216]

In a hearing at the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 7 December 2010, Assange identified a post office box as his address. When told by the judge that this information was not acceptable, he submitted "Parkville, Victoria, Australia" on a sheet of paper. His lack of permanent address and nomadic lifestyle were cited by the judge as factors in denying bail.^[217] He was ultimately released, in part because journalist Vaughan Smith offered to provide Assange with an address for bail during the extradition proceedings, Smith's Norfolk mansion, Ellingham Hall.^[218] He lived there for a year, then moved out in December 2011 to a "3,000-acre estate in East Sussex" - "a lodge on Lord Abergavenny's Eridge Park estate, near Tunbridge Wells".^[219][220]

Political and economic views[link]

According to Assange, "It’s not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I’ve learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I’m a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free."^[221]

Running for Australian Senate[link]

On 17 March 2012 WikiLeaks announced on its Twitter account that Assange plans to run for the Australian Senate in the next Australian federal election.^[222] In May 2012 The Sydney Morning Herald reported that in a poll of 1,000 voters, 25% of them were likely to vote for Mr Assange if he ran, which pollster John Utting said means "a very real chance of being elected to the Senate should he run.^[223]

Works[link]

Books

• Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier (1997) (Assange is credited as "researcher" for the credited principal author, Suelette Dreyfus)

Essays

• State and Terrorist Conspiracies (2006)
• Conspiracy as Governance (2006)
• The Hidden Curse of Thomas Paine (2008)

References[link]