Hubbry Logo
United States diplomatic cables leakUnited States diplomatic cables leakMain
Open search
United States diplomatic cables leak
Community hub
United States diplomatic cables leak
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
United States diplomatic cables leak
United States diplomatic cables leak
United States diplomatic cables leak
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Cablegate
DescriptionRelease of 251,287 United States diplomatic cables
Dates of cables1966–2010
Period of release18 February 2010 – 1 September 2011
Key publishersEl País, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Guardian, The New York Times, WikiLeaks
Related articlesAfghan War documents leak, Iraq War documents leak
SubjectData protection, First Amendment, freedom of information, freedom of speech

An incident, commonly referred to as Cablegate, began on 28 November 2010[1] when WikiLeaks began releasing classified cables that had been sent to the U.S. State Department by 274 of its consulates, embassies, and diplomatic missions around the world. Dated between December 1966 and February 2010, the cables contain diplomatic analysis from world leaders, and the diplomats' assessment of host countries and their officials.[2]

On 30 July 2013, Chelsea Manning was convicted for theft of the cables and violations of the Espionage Act in a court martial proceeding and sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment. She was released on 17 May 2017, after seven years total confinement, after her sentence had been commuted by President Barack Obama earlier that year.

Sequence of leaks

[edit]

The first document, the so-called Reykjavik 13 cable, was released by WikiLeaks on 18 February 2010, and was followed by the release of State Department profiles of Icelandic politicians a month later.[3] Later that year, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief, reached an agreement with media partners in Europe and the United States to publish the rest of the cables in redacted form, removing the names of sources and others in vulnerable positions. On 28 November, the first 220 cables were published under this agreement by El País (Spain), Der Spiegel (Germany), Le Monde (France), The Guardian (United Kingdom), and The New York Times (United States).[4] WikiLeaks had planned to release the rest over several months; 2,017 had been published as of 11 January 2011.[citation needed]

The remaining cables were published in September 2011 after a series of events compromised the security of a WikiLeaks file containing the cables. This included WikiLeaks volunteers placing an encrypted file containing all WikiLeaks data online as "insurance" in July 2010, in case something happened to the organization.[5] In February 2011 David Leigh of The Guardian published the encryption passphrase in a book;[6] he had received it from Assange so he could access a copy of the Cablegate file, and believed the passphrase was a temporary one, unique to that file. In August 2011, German weekly Der Freitag published some of these details, enabling others to piece the information together and decrypt the Cablegate files. The cables were then available online, fully unredacted. In response, WikiLeaks decided on 1 September 2011 to publish all 251,287 unedited documents.[7]

The publication of the cables was the third in a series of U.S. classified document leaks distributed by WikiLeaks in 2010, following the Afghan War documents leak in July, and the Iraq War documents leak in October. Over 130,000 of the cables are unclassified, some 100,000 are labeled "confidential", around 15,000 have the higher classification "secret", and none are classified as "top secret" on the classification scale.[4]

Background

[edit]
Wikinews has news on this topic

In June 2010, the magazine Wired reported that the U.S. State Department and embassy personnel were concerned that Chelsea Manning, a United States Army soldier charged with the unauthorized download of classified material while stationed in Iraq, had leaked diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks rejected the report as inaccurate: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified U.S. embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect".[8][9]

However, during that same month (June 2010), The Guardian had been offered "half a million military dispatches from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. There might be more after that, including an immense bundle of confidential diplomatic cables", and Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian had contacted Bill Keller, editor of The New York Times, to see if he would be interested in sharing the dissemination of the information.[10]

Manning was suspected to have uploaded all that was obtained to WikiLeaks, which chose to release the material in stages so as to have the greatest possible impact.[11]

According to The Guardian, all the diplomatic cables were marked "Sipdis", denoting "secret internet protocol distribution", which means they had been distributed via the closed U.S. SIPRNet, the U.S. Department of Defense's classified version of the civilian internet.[12] More than three million U.S. government personnel and soldiers have access to this network.[13] Documents marked "top secret" are not included in the system. Such a large quantity of secret information was available to a wide audience because, as The Guardian alleged, after the 11 September attacks an increased focus had been placed on sharing information since gaps in intra-governmental information sharing had been exposed.[12] More specifically, the diplomatic, military, law enforcement, and intelligence communities would be able to do their jobs better with this easy access to analytic and operative information.[12] A spokesman said that in the previous weeks and months additional measures had been taken to improve the security of the system and prevent leaks.[12]

Before the release, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed the leak with diplomats.

On 22 November, an announcement was made via WikiLeaks' Twitter feed that the next release would be "7× the size of the Iraq War Logs".[14][15] U.S. authorities and the media had speculated, at the time, that they could contain diplomatic cables.[16] Prior to the expected leak, the government of the United Kingdom (UK) sent a DA-Notice to UK newspapers, which requested advance notice from newspapers regarding the expected publication.[17] Index on Censorship pointed out that "there is no obligation on [the] media to comply".[17] Under the terms of a DA-Notice, "[n]ewspaper editors would speak to [the] Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee prior to publication".[17] The Guardian was revealed to have been the source of the copy of the documents given to The New York Times in order to prevent the British government from obtaining any injunction against its publication.[18] The Pakistani newspaper Dawn stated that the U.S. newspapers The New York Times and The Washington Post were expected to publish parts of the diplomatic cables on 28 November, including 94 Pakistan-related documents.[19]

On 26 November, Assange sent a letter to the U.S. Department of State, via his lawyer Jennifer Robinson, inviting them to "privately nominate any specific instances (record numbers or names) where it considers the publication of information would put individual persons at significant risk of harm that has not already been addressed".[20][21] Harold Koh, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State, rejected the proposal, stating: "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials". Koh added that the material was acquired illegally and "as long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing".[20][21] Assange responded by writing back to the U.S. State Department that "you have chosen to respond in a manner which leads me to conclude that the supposed risks are entirely fanciful and you are instead concerned to suppress evidence of human rights abuse and other criminal behaviour".[21][22] Ahead of the leak, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other American officials contacted governments in several countries about the impending release.[23]

Release

[edit]

November 2010 release of redacted cables

[edit]

The five newspapers that had obtained an advance copy of all leaked cables began releasing the cables on 28 November 2010, and WikiLeaks made the cables selected by these newspapers and redacted by their journalists available on its website. "They are releasing the documents we selected", Le Monde's managing editor, Sylvie Kauffmann, said in an interview.[24]

WikiLeaks aimed to release the cables in phases over several months due to their global scope and significance.[25] The first batch of leaks released comprised 220 cables.[25] Further cables were subsequently made available on the WikiLeaks website. The full set of cables published by WikiLeaks can be browsed and searched by a variety of websites.[26]

Contents

[edit]
Contents of the 251,287 cables
Subject Documents
External political relations 145,451
Internal government affairs 122,896
Human rights 55,211
Economic conditions 49,044
Terrorists and terrorism 28,801
UN Security Council 6,532
Main article: Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak

The contents of the U.S. diplomatic cables leak describe in detail events and incidents surrounding international affairs from 274 embassies dating from 28 December 1966 to 28 February 2010. The diplomatic cables revealed numerous unguarded comments and revelations: US diplomats gathering personal information about Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and other top UN officials; critiques and praises about the host countries of various U.S. embassies, discussion and resolutions towards ending ongoing tension in the Middle East, efforts for and resistance against nuclear disarmament, actions in the War on Terror, assessments of other threats around the world, dealings between various countries, U.S. intelligence and counterintelligence efforts, U.S. support of dictatorship and other diplomatic actions.

The leaked cables revealed that diplomats of the U.S. and Britain eavesdropped on Secretary General Kofi Annan in the weeks before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, in apparent violation of international treaties prohibiting spying at the UN.[27][28] The intelligence information the diplomats were ordered to gather included biometric information, passwords, and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.[28][29] It also included Internet and intranet usernames, e-mail addresses, web site URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers, and work schedules.[28][30][31] The targeted human intelligence was requested in a process known as the National Humint Collection Directive, and was aimed at foreign diplomats of US allies as well.[31] WikiLeaks released the cable on 28 November 2010.

The Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative was contained in a February 2009 diplomatic cable to the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, which was leaked, redacted and released by WikiLeaks in 2010. On 6 December 2010, the BBC called it "one of the most sensitive" leaks.[32] WikiLeaks removed only a minority of the details of names and locations, and left the rest uncensored; details of the exact location of the assets were not included in the list.[33] The list included critical facilities for the global supply chain, global communications, and economically important goods and services.

An investigation into two senior Zimbabwe army commanders who communicated with US Ambassador Charles A. Ray was launched, with the two facing a possible court martial.[34] On 14 September the Committee to Protect Journalists said that an Ethiopian journalist named in the cables was forced to flee the country[35] but WikiLeaks accused the CPJ of distorting the situation "for marketing purposes".[36] Al Jazeera replaced its news director, Wadah Khanfar, on 20 September after he was identified in the cables.[37] The naming of mainland China residents reportedly "sparked an online witch-hunt by Chinese nationalist groups, with some advocating violence against those now known to have met with U.S. Embassy staff."[38] US officials said the damage caused was limited.[39][40]

One of the leaked documents included comments sent to the US State Department by Philip Alston, United Nations special rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions regarding the Ishaqi incident. Alston stated that US forces handcuffed and executed the residents of a house on 15 March 2006. The residents included five children under 5 years of age. Autopsies later confirmed that "all the corpses were shot in the head and handcuffed". The US said their troops had been fired on when they approached the house and the people were killed by a support air raid. A US inquiry three months later determined that the soldiers had acted according to the rules of engagement in taking down a safe house. The Iraqi government then said they would open an inquiry. In September 2011, the Iraqi government said they would reopen their investigation into the incident as a result of the publication of the cable. Iraqi officials said that the cable was sufficient cause to deny the Americans any bases and demand that all troops leave.[41][42]

In December 2010, Der Spiegel reported that one of the cables showed that the US had placed pressure on Germany not to pursue the 13 suspected CIA agents involved in the 2003 abduction of Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen. The abduction was probably carried out through "extraordinary rendition". German prosecutors in Munich had issued arrest warrants for the 13 suspected CIA operatives involved in the abduction. The cables released by Wikileaks showed that after contact from the then-Deputy US Ambassador John M. Koenig and US diplomats the Munich public prosecutor's office and Germany's Justice Ministry and Foreign Ministry all cooperated with the US and the agents were not extradited to Germany.[43]

Coverage

[edit]

The Guardian released its coverage of the leaked cables in numerous articles, including an interactive database, starting on 28 November.[44] El País released its report[45] saying there was an agreement between the newspapers for simultaneous publication of the "internationally relevant" documents, but that each newspaper was free to select and treat those documents that primarily relate to its own country.[46] Der Spiegel also released its preliminary report, with extended coverage promised for the next day.[47] Its cover for 29 November was also leaked with the initial report.[48]

The New York Times initially covered the story in a nine-part series spanning nine days, with the first story published simultaneously with the other outlets.[49] The New York Times was not originally intended to receive the leak, allegedly[50] due to its unflattering portrayal of the site's founder, but The Guardian decided to share coverage, citing earlier cooperation while covering the Afghan and Iraqi war logs. The Washington Post reported that it also requested permission to see the documents, but was rejected for undisclosed reasons.[50] CNN was originally supposed to receive an advance copy of the documents as well, but did not after it refused to sign a confidentiality agreement with WikiLeaks.[51] The Wall Street Journal also refused advance access, apparently for similar reasons as CNN.[52]

The Russian weekly newspaper Russky Reporter (Русский Репортёр)[53] has published a large number of cables, both in English and in Russian translation.[54] Some of their reporting was criticised for being inaccurate and posting misleading translations of cables.[55] Russky Reporter denied misleading readers, and said they had early access to WikiLeaks cables through Israel Shamir.[55][56] Yulia Latynina, writing in The Moscow Times, alleged that Shamir concocted a cable which allegedly quoted European Union diplomats' plans to walk out of the Durban II speech by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for publication in the pro-Putin Russky Reporter in December 2010.[57][58][59] Shamir has denied this accusation.[59] The Lebanese daily newspaper Al-Akhbar published about 183 cables on 2 December 2010.[60][61] Australian-based Fairfax Media obtained access to the cables under a separate arrangement.[62] Fairfax newspapers began releasing their own stories based on the leaked cables on 7 December 2010.[63][64] The Cuban government-run website Razones de Cuba[65] started publishing Spanish translations of WikiLeaks documents on 23 December 2010.[66]

The Swedish newspapers Svenska Dagbladet and Aftonbladet started reporting on the leaks in early December 2010.[67] In Norway Verdens Gang (VG) brought the first leaks concerning the United States and the Norwegian government on 7 December.[68] Aftenposten, a Norwegian daily newspaper, reported on 17 December 2010 that it had gained access to the full cable set of 251,287 documents.[69] While it is unclear how it received the documents, they were apparently not obtained directly from WikiLeaks. Aftenposten started releasing cables that were not available in the official WikiLeaks distribution.[70] As of 5 January 2011, it had released just over one hundred cables unpublished by WikiLeaks, with about a third of these related to Sri Lanka, and many related to Norway.[70] Politiken, a Danish daily newspaper, announced on 8 January 2011 that it had obtained access to the full set of cables.[71]

NRC, a Dutch daily newspaper, and RTL Nieuws, a Dutch television news service, announced on 14 January 2011 that they had gained access to the about 3,000 cables sent from The Hague, via Aftenposten.[72] NOS announced on the same day that it had obtained these same cables from WikiLeaks.[73] Die Welt, a German daily newspaper, announced on 17 January 2011 that they had gained access to the full set of cables, via Aftenposten.[74] The Costa Rican newspaper La Nación announced on 1 March 2011 it had received 827 cables from WikiLeaks which it started publishing the next day. 764 of these were sent from the U.S. Embassy in San José while 63 were sent from other embassies and deal with Costa Rican affairs.[75]

The Ecuadorian newspaper El Universo started releasing 343 cables related to the Ecuadorian government and institutions on 6 April 2011.[76] The publication was done the day after the Spanish newspaper El País published a cable in which the ambassador Heather Hodges showed concerns regarding corruption in the Ecuadorian National Police, especially of Gral. Jaime Hurtado Vaca, former Police commander. The ambassador was later declared persona non grata and was requested to leave the country as soon as possible.[77]

Several of the newspapers coordinating with WikiLeaks have published some of the cables on their own websites.[78]

September 2011 release of mostly unredacted cables

[edit]

In August 2010, Assange gave Guardian journalist David Leigh an encryption key and a URL where he could locate the full Cablegate file. In February 2011, shortly before Domscheit-Berg's book appeared, Leigh and Luke Harding, another Guardian journalist, published WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy via Guardian Books. In it, Leigh revealed the encryption key Assange had given him.[7]

The key to the document is: ACollectionOfDiplomaticHistorySince_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#.[79][80]

The encrypted file was placed in a hidden sub-folder on the WikiLeaks web server[79] on which it had been placed to aid in transferring the file from WikiLeaks to Leigh and not removed due to an oversight. When the WikiLeaks website experienced denial-of-service attacks, mirror sites were set up and supporters created and shared a compressed BitTorrent of the entire site, including the hidden sub-folder.[81] On 25 August 2011, the German magazine Der Freitag published an article about it,[82] and while it left out the crucial details, there was enough to allow others to begin piecing the information together.[81] The story was also published in the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information and the US Embassy in London and the US State Department were notified the same day.[81][83]

Denn der Freitag hat eine Datei, die auch unredigierte US-Botschaftsdepeschen enthält. ... Die Datei mit dem Namen "cables.csv" ist 1,73 Gigabyte groß. ... Das Passwort zu dieser Datei liegt offen zutage und ist für Kenner der Materie zu identifizieren.

Because der Freitag have discovered a file on the internet which includes the unredacted embassy files. ... The file is called "cables.csv" and is 1.73 gigabytes in size. ... The password for this file is plain to see and identifiable for someone familiar with the material.

Steffen Kraft[82]

On 29 August, WikiLeaks published over 130,000 unredacted cables.[84][85][86] On 31 August, WikiLeaks tweeted[87] a link to a torrent of the encrypted data.[88][81] On 1 September 2011, WikiLeaks announced that an encrypted version of the un-redacted US State Department cables had been available for months. WikiLeaks said that it would publish the entire, unredacted archive in searchable form on its website the next day.[89]

The unredacted cables were published by Cryptome a day before WikiLeaks.[90][91] Cryptome's owner, John Young, testified in 2020 that Cryptome has never been asked by US law enforcement to remove the unredacted cables and that they remain online.[92][93]

On 2 September, WikiLeaks published searchable, unredacted copies of all of the cables on their website.[90][94]

According to Glenn Greenwald, WikiLeaks decided that the "safest course was to release all the cables in full, so that not only the world's intelligence agencies but everyone had them, so that steps could be taken to protect the sources and so that the information in them was equally available."[95] According to The Guardian, "the newly published archive" contained "more than 1,000 cables identifying individual activists; several thousand labelled with a tag used by the US to mark sources it believes could be placed in danger; and more than 150 specifically mentioning whistleblowers".[96][97]

Consequences of the release

[edit]

On 2 September 2011, Australia's attorney general, Robert McClelland released a statement that the unredacted cables identified at least one ASIO officer, and that it was a crime in Australia to publish information which could identify an intelligence officer. McClelland said that "On occasions before this week, WikiLeaks redacted identifying features where the safety of individuals or national security could be put at risk. It appears this hasn't occurred with documents that have been distributed across the internet this week." According to The Guardian at the time, this meant "Julian Assange could face prosecution in Australia."[98]

After WikiLeaks published the unredacted cables, some journalists and contacts of the US government allegedly faced retaliation. For example according to media reports, Ethiopian journalist Argaw Ashine was interrogated several times about a reference to him in a cable talking to a government source. The source told him about plans to arrest the editors of the critical Ethiopian weekly Addis Neger. The editors for Addis Neger fled the country the next month. Ashine was subjected to government harassment and intimidation, and was forced to flee the country.[99][100][101] According to the former US Ambassador to Cameroon from 2004 to 2007, Niels Marquardt, Marafa Hamidou Yaya was arrested on "entirely unproven corruption charges", subjected to a "kangaroo court", and given a 25-year prison sentence. Marquardt said Marafa's only real crime was having told him that he "might be interested" in the presidency one day. When the cable was released, it became frontpage news in Cameroon and led directly to Marafa's arrest.[102] The Ambassador at the time, Robert Jackson, said Marafa's trial did not specify the evidence against him.[102][103]

The U.S. established an Information Review Task Force (IRTF) to investigate the impact of WikiLeaks' publications. In 2013, Brigadier general Robert Carr, who headed the IRTF, testified at Chelsea Manning's sentencing hearing that the task force had found no specific examples of anyone who had lost his or her life in reprisals due WikiLeaks' publication of material provided by Manning. Ed Pilkington wrote in The Guardian that Carr's testimony significantly undermined the argument that WikiLeaks' publications put lives at risk.[104] According to IRTF reports, "the lives of cooperating Afghans, Iraqis, and other foreign interlocutors have been placed at increased risk" because of the leaks. The reports said that the leaks could also cause "serious damage" to "intelligence sources, informants and the Afghan population". A damage assessment by the IRTF, 111,000 IED-related documents in the leaks "may lead to the compromise of Counter IED tactics, techniques and procedures used by Coalition Forces conducting exploitation of IED events".[105] In 2020, a lawyer for the US said that "sources, whose redacted names and other identifying information was contained in classified documents published by Wikileaks, who subsequently disappeared, although the US can't prove at this point that their disappearance was the result of being outed by Wikileaks."[106][107][108]

2010-2011 reactions to the releases

[edit]
Main article: Reactions to the United States diplomatic cables leak

Reactions to the leak in 2010 varied. Western governments expressed strong disapproval, while the material generated intense interest from the public and journalists. Some political leaders referred to Assange as a criminal, while blaming the U.S. Department of Defense for security lapses. Supporters of Assange referred to him in November 2010 as a key defender of free speech and freedom of the press.[109] Reaction to the release in September 2011 of the unredacted cables attracted stronger criticism, and was condemned by the five newspapers that had first published the cables in redacted form in November 2010.[110]

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded to the leaks saying, "This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy; it is an attack on the international community, the alliances and partnerships, the conventions and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity." Julian Assange is quoted as saying, "Of course, abusive, Titanic organizations, when exposed, grasp at all sorts of ridiculous straws to try and distract the public from the true nature of the abuse."[111] John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote a tweet saying: "The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops."[112]

Denial-of-service attack

[edit]

About an hour prior to the planned release of the initial documents, WikiLeaks announced it was experiencing a massive distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS),[113] but vowed to still release the cables and documents via pre-agreed prominent media outlets El País, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, and The New York Times.[114]

According to Arbor Networks, an Internet-analyst group, the DDoS attack accounted for between two and four gigabits per second (Gbit/s) of additional traffic to the WikiLeaks host network, compared to an average traffic of between twelve and fifteen Gbit/s under ordinary conditions.[115] The attack was slightly more powerful than ordinary DDoS attacks, though well below the maximum of 60 to 100 Gbit/s of other major attacks during 2010.[115]

On 2 December 2010, EveryDNS, who provide a free DNS hosting service, dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing DDoS attacks that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure",[116] but the site was copied and made available at many other addresses, an example of the Streisand effect.[117]

Dropping of hosting, finance services, and accessibility

[edit]

Amazon.com removed WikiLeaks from its servers on 1 December 2010 at 19:30 GMT, and the latter website was unreachable until 20:17 GMT when the site had defaulted to its Swedish servers, hosted by Bahnhof.

U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, among the members of the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee who had questioned Amazon in private communication on the company's hosting of WikiLeaks and the illegally obtained documents, commended Amazon for the action;[118] WikiLeaks, however, responded by stating on its official Twitter page that "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted. Free speech the land of the free—fine our $ are now spent to employ people in Europe", and later that "If Amazon are so uncomfortable with the first amendment, they should get out of the business of selling books".[119]

On 2 December 2010, Tableau Software withdrew its visualizations from the contents of the leak, stating that it was directly due to political pressure from Joe Lieberman.[120][121]

On 4 December, PayPal cut off the account used by WikiLeaks to collect donations.[122]

On 6 December, the Swiss bank PostFinance announced that it had frozen the assets of Assange;[123] on the same day, MasterCard stopped payments to WikiLeaks,[124] with Visa following them on 7 December.[125]

Official efforts by the U.S. government to limit access to, conversation about, and general spread of the cables leaked by WikiLeaks were revealed by leading media organizations. A 4 December 2010 article by MSNBC[126] reported that the Obama administration had warned federal government employees and students in educational institutions studying towards careers in public service that they must refrain from downloading or linking to any WikiLeaks documents. However, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley denied ordering students, stating, "We do not control private networks. We have issued no authoritative instructions to people who are not employees of the Department of State." He said the warning was from an "overzealous employee."[127] According to a December 2010 article in The Guardian, access to WikiLeaks was blocked on government computers because the information was still classified.[128]

A spokesman for Columbia University confirmed on 4 December that its Office of Career Services sent an e-mail warning students at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs to refrain from accessing WikiLeaks cables and discussing this subject on the grounds that "discourse about the documents would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information".[129] However, this was quickly retracted on the following day. SIPA Dean John Henry Coatsworth wrote that "Freedom of information and expression is a core value of our institution, ... thus, SIPA's position is that students have a right to discuss and debate any information in the public arena that they deem relevant to their studies or to their roles as global citizens, and to do so without fear of adverse consequences."[130]

The New York Times reported on 14 December[131] that the U.S. Air Force bars its personnel from access to news sites (such as those of The New York Times and The Guardian) that publish leaked cables.

On 18 December, the Bank of America stopped handling payments for WikiLeaks.[132]

Anonymous and anti-censorship

[edit]
Main articles: Operation Payback and Timeline of events associated with Anonymous § Arab Spring activities

In response to perceived federal and corporate censorship of the cable leaks, internet group Anonymous launched DDoS attacks on several websites. So far, the websites of the Swedish prosecutor, PostFinance (the Swiss post-office banking company), MasterCard and Visa have all been targeted.[133]

The websites of the government of Zimbabwe were targeted by Anonymous with DDoS attacks due to censorship of the WikiLeaks documents.[134] The websites of the government of Tunisia were targeted by Anonymous due to censorship of the WikiLeaks documents and the Tunisian revolution.[134] Tunisians were reported to be assisting in these denial-of-service attacks launched by Anonymous.[135] Anonymous's role in the DDoS attacks on the Tunisian government's websites has led to an upsurge of internet activism among Tunisians against the government.[136] Anonymous released an online message denouncing the government clampdown on recent protests and posted it on the Tunisian government website.[137] Anonymous has named their attacks "Operation Tunisia".[138] Anonymous successfully DDoSsed eight Tunisian government websites. They plan attacks in Internet Relay Chat networks. Someone attacked Anonymous's website with a DDoS on 5 January.[139]

Manipulation of news based on WikiLeaks cables

[edit]

On 9 December 2010, major Pakistani newspapers (such as The News International, The Express Tribune and the Daily Jang) and television channels carried stories that claimed to detail U.S. diplomats' assessments of senior Indian generals as "vain, egotistical and genocidal", also saying "India's government is secretly allied with Hindu fundamentalists", and that "Indian spies are covertly supporting Islamist militants in Pakistan's tribal belt and Balochistan."[140] However, none of the cables revealed any such assessments. The claims were credited to an Islamabad-based news service agency that frequently ran pro-Pakistan Army stories.[140]

Later, The News International admitted the story "was dubious and may have been planted", and The Express Tribune offered "profuse" apologies to readers.[141] Urdu-language papers such as the Daily Jang, however, declined to retract the story.[141]

Twitter subpoena

[edit]
Main article: Twitter subpoena

On 14 December 2010, a U.S. federal court subpoenaed Twitter for extensive information regarding WikiLeaks, but also put on a gagging order. The order was said to be part of an "ongoing criminal investigation", and required information regarding the Twitter accounts of WikiLeaks, Assange, Manning, Rop Gonggrijp, Jacob Appelbaum, and Birgitta Jonsdottir. According to Glenn Greenwald, the court "gave Twitter three days to respond and barred the company from notifying anyone, including the users, of the existence of the Order."[142] Twitter requested that it be allowed to notify the users, giving them ten days to object. The court order was unsealed on 5 January 2011, and Jonsdottir decided to publicly fight the order.[143]

Elected representatives of Iceland have declared such actions by the U.S. government "serious", "peculiar", "outlandish", and akin to heavy breathing on the telephone.[144] The published subpoena text demands "you are to provide ... subscriber names, user names ... mailing addresses, residential addresses, business addresses ... telephone number[s]... credit card or bank account number[s]... billing records", "as well as 'destination email addresses and IP addresses".[145] As of 10 January 2011, there were 636,759 followers of the WikiLeaks Twitter feed with destination email addresses and IP addresses.[146][147]

Tunisian revolution and Arab Spring

[edit]

The cable leaks have been pointed to as a catalyst for the 2010–2011 Tunisian revolution and government overthrow. Foreign Policy magazine said, "We might also count Tunisia as the first time that WikiLeaks pushed people over the brink."[148] Additionally, The New York Times said, "The protesters ... found grist for the complaints in leaked cables from the United States Embassy in Tunisia, released by WikiLeaks, that detailed the self-dealing and excess of the president's family."[149][150][151]

It is widely believed that the Tunisian revolution then spread to other parts of the Middle East, turning into the Arab Spring.[152]

Unredacted cable reactions

[edit]

After the unredacted cables became available online, WikiLeaks added them to their searchable database. The release was condemned by WikiLeaks' media partners, the Guardian, New York Times, El Pais, Der Spiegel and Le Monde, who said it put sources at risk of dismissal, detention and physical harm.[153][154][155] The organisations published a joint statement that WikiLeaks disputed.[154]

We deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted state department cables, which may put sources at risk. Our previous dealings with WikiLeaks were on the clear basis that we would only publish cables which had been subjected to a thorough joint editing and clearance process. We will continue to defend our previous collaborative publishing endeavour. We cannot defend the needless publication of the complete data – indeed, we are united in condemning it. The decision to publish by Julian Assange was his, and his alone.[153]

The publication was also condemned by Reporters Without Borders and the Index On Censorship.[155][156][157] After the publication, Reporters Without Borders temporarily suspended their WikiLeaks mirror and criticized the group, saying the decision could put journalists in danger.[158][155][156][159]

Glenn Greenwald commented that it was "a disaster from every angle" and criticised WikiLeaks, The Guardian 's David Leigh, and Open Leaks' Daniel Domscheit-Berg. According to Greenwald, "it's possible that diplomatic sources identified in the cables (including whistleblowers and human rights activists) will be harmed; this will be used by enemies of transparency and WikiLeaks to disparage both and even fuel efforts to prosecute the group; it implicates a newspaper, The Guardian, that generally produces very good and responsible journalism; it likely increases political pressure to impose more severe punishment on Bradley Manning if he's found guilty of having leaked these cables; and it will completely obscure the already-ignored, important revelations of serious wrongdoing from these documents."[88][95] Greenwald and other commentators have agreed with WikiLeaks' rationale for the release of unredacted cables.[95][160]

Leigh was criticized by several commentators, including Glenn Greenwald, who called the publication of the password "reckless", arguing that, even if it had been a temporary one, publishing it divulged the type of passwords WikiLeaks was using.[7] WikiLeaks said it was pursuing pre-litigation action against The Guardian for an alleged breach of a confidentiality agreement.[161] Leigh disclaimed responsibility for the release, saying Assange had assured him the password would expire hours after it was disclosed to him.[162] Mark Davis, a journalist who was present while Assange worked with the media during the publication of the Afghan War logs, said that claims that Assange was callous about harm that might be caused by disclosures were lies, and that if there was a cavalier attitude it was the Guardian journalists who had a disdain for the impact of the material.[163]

A Defense Department spokesman criticised WikiLeaks over it, saying "what we have said all along about the danger of these types of things is reinforced by the fact that there are now documents out there in unredacted form containing the names of individuals whose lives are at risk because they are named. Once WikiLeaks has these documents in its possession, it loses control and information gets out whether they intend [it] to or not."[164]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

United States diplomatic cables leak

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The diplomatic cables leak, commonly referred to as Cablegate, consisted of the release by of 251,287 classified cables drafted by United States diplomatic missions and sent to the U.S. Department of State between 1966 and February 2010. These documents, primarily from the period 2003 to 2010, encompassed candid assessments of foreign governments, leaders, and international events, revealing discrepancies between public diplomatic rhetoric and private strategic communications. The leak originated from U.S. Army intelligence analyst , who accessed the cables via the system and transmitted them to in 2010. Manning was arrested in June 2010, convicted in 2013 of violating the Espionage Act and theft, and sentenced to 35 years before receiving a commutation in 2017. began publishing the cables on November 28, 2010, initially in redacted form through partnerships with outlets such as , , and to mitigate risks to sources, followed by unredacted releases in 2011 after a cryptographic key was published by a third party. The disclosures provoked immediate diplomatic fallout, with the U.S. government labeling them a threat to and straining relations with allies whose leaders were unflatteringly profiled, such as Italian Prime Minister and Afghan President . Notable revelations included Saudi Arabia's private urging of U.S. military action against Iran's nuclear program, evidence of U.S. intelligence operations targeting UN officials, and assessments of global and . While U.S. officials claimed the leaks endangered lives and operations, subsequent reviews indicated no confirmed deaths directly attributable to the publications, though they compelled a reevaluation of protocols and transparency in . The event underscored tensions between governmental secrecy and public accountability, influencing debates on and press freedoms without precipitating systemic shifts in U.S. foreign policy execution.

Background

Diplomatic cables system

Diplomatic cables in the United States foreign service are confidential text-based messages exchanged between embassies, consulates, and the Department of State to report on international developments, implement policy directives, and provide analytical assessments. These communications enable to document conversations, outline tactics, evaluate foreign leaders' reliability and intentions, and integrate from various sources into policy recommendations, often featuring unvarnished opinions reserved for internal deliberation rather than public consumption. Transmission occurs via secure channels, primarily the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), a dedicated system for handling classified information up to the SECRET level, employed by the Department of State and Department of Defense to segregate sensitive data from unclassified networks like NIPRNet. SIPRNet facilitates real-time exchange of these reports from overseas posts to Washington, ensuring encrypted delivery while prohibiting direct internet connectivity to prevent external breaches. Classification follows standards, with cables marked from UNCLASSIFIED—where disclosure poses no expected damage—to CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET levels indicating potential serious harm to if compromised; a common caveat is //NOFORN, restricting sharing with non-U.S. nationals to protect source confidentiality and frank exchanges. SECRET//NOFORN designations were prevalent in sensitive reporting, emphasizing operational for content like alliance vulnerabilities or leader pathologies. The system's scale involved generating hundreds of thousands of such cables annually, culminating in over 250,000 documents spanning December 1966 to February 2010, with the bulk post-2000 reflecting intensified global engagements and digital reporting efficiencies. This volume underscores the routine, high-throughput nature of essential for informed policymaking.

WikiLeaks' prior activities and methods

WikiLeaks was established in 2006 by Australian activist and a group of collaborators as a non-profit platform designed to receive, verify, and publish censored or classified documents submitted anonymously by whistleblowers, with the stated mission of fostering government and corporate transparency. The organization emphasized ideological opposition to secrecy, drawing inspiration from earlier whistleblower actions like Daniel Ellsberg's release of the Pentagon Papers, while positioning itself as a secure conduit for sensitive information that traditional media might avoid. Prior to 2010, conducted several publications that demonstrated its operational tactics, including the December 2006 release of documents alleging a Somali assassination order by Kenyan authorities, which highlighted its focus on exposing potential abuses in . In 2007, it published a U.S. Army manual detailing interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay, underscoring early efforts to reveal military practices. Additional pre-2010 releases included 2008 leaks of emails from Palin's Yahoo account and documents from the Julius Baer financial , which prompted a U.S. against the site for hosting allegedly stolen data, though the case was later dismissed on free speech grounds. In 2009, disclosed details of the oil involving allegations against officials. These activities established a pattern of targeting state and corporate secrets, often claiming to redact personally identifiable information to safeguard sources, though critics contended that such practices were inconsistent and sometimes insufficient to prevent harm. Operationally, relied on cryptographic tools for secure anonymous submissions, such as Tor networks and AES-256 encryption for data handling and storage, processed in isolated environments to minimize traceability and ensure . Submissions were verified for authenticity before publication, with the organization asserting a commitment to unredacted truth where possible but applying redactions selectively for operational security. Early collaborations with media outlets, though limited compared to later efforts, involved sharing materials with journalists for contextual analysis, as seen in some European publications, to amplify impact while maintaining for leakers. This approach drew accusations of selective transparency, as prioritized leaks aligning with its anti-authoritarian stance, rejecting or delaying others deemed less newsworthy, according to reports from involved parties.

The Leak Process

Chelsea Manning's access and motivations

Chelsea Manning, then known as Bradley Manning, enlisted in the United States Army in 2007 and was trained as an intelligence analyst, achieving the rank of Private First Class. Assigned to the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Iraq from October 2009, her role involved analyzing battlefield intelligence and querying classified databases to support operational decisions. This position granted her access to the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), a secure system handling secret-level information shared between military branches and the Department of State, including over 250,000 diplomatic cables stored in systems like the Net Centric Diplomacy database. Manning's service was marked by personal challenges, including struggles with and , which she disclosed in an April 24, 2010, email to her supervisor describing intense and seeking support amid the military's "" policy. She also voiced growing disillusionment with U.S. military operations in and , citing observations of detainee abuses, collateral civilian casualties, and perceived inconsistencies between official narratives and on-the-ground realities, such as the 2007 Baghdad airstrike video later leaked. These factors coincided with her online communications in May 2010 with hacker , in which she confided her leaks and frustrations, ultimately leading Lamo to alert authorities and facilitate her identification and arrest on June 27, 2010. During her 2013 , Manning stated that her intent in accessing and leaking the cables was to promote public discourse on U.S. , asserting that the documents revealed the "true cost of war" and diplomatic hypocrisies, and that "this belongs in the " to inform citizens without aiding enemies directly. In chats with Lamo, she emphasized sparking a "worldwide , debate and ," driven by for those impacted by U.S. actions rather than ideological to . Prosecutors countered that her releases demonstrated reckless disregard for consequences, potentially benefiting adversaries like , but the military judge convicted her on charges without a definitive finding on whether her primary aim was or broader harm, leaving her subjective motivations empirically tied to her amid conflicting interpretations.

Acquisition and transfer of cables

Manning exploited lax enforcement of policies on the classified system, downloading approximately 750,000 documents—including 251,287 State Department diplomatic cables spanning 1966 to 2010—onto writable CDs labeled as music albums to evade visual inspections at secure facilities like Hammer in . This method capitalized on the absence of effective auditing or two-person integrity rules for , allowing bulk extraction from shared DoD-State databases without granular need-to-know verification. After smuggling the CDs out of the SCIF, Manning transferred the files from her personal using a secure file-transfer protocol over encrypted channels to ' submission system, beginning with initial batches in early and confirming receipt through direct communication. The transfers highlighted systemic flaws in inter-agency , where military analysts accessed vast unsegmented diplomatic records without robust or access logging, enabling the extraction of over 261 million words in cable text alone.

Initial handling by WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks received the approximately 251,000 U.S. diplomatic cables from Chelsea Manning in late May 2010, following her transfer of the files via encrypted channels. The organization, led by , then initiated a verification process to confirm the documents' authenticity and assess potential risks to sources and operations. This involved manual review and development of employing to identify and redact names of informants, activists, and other vulnerable individuals mentioned in the cables. The redaction efforts spanned several months, marked by internal tensions over the pace and rigor of the process. Former spokesperson , who departed the organization in September 2010, later criticized Assange for prioritizing rapid dissemination over thorough harm minimization, citing instances where sensitive details risked exposure in prior leaks and expressing concerns that similar haste could apply to the cables. These disputes contributed to delays, as Assange insisted on extensive precautions to avoid endangering lives, contrasting with accusations of inconsistency given the eventual unredacted release in 2011 that undermined claims of sustained caution. To bolster verification and contextual analysis, coordinated with established media outlets including , , , , and , providing them advance access to subsets of the cables for independent and story development. This , formalized in agreements stipulating simultaneous phased , aimed to mitigate immediate risks through expert scrutiny while leveraging journalistic resources for harm assessment, though it due to disputes over . The process extended from receipt in May to the planned rollout in November 2010, reflecting a deliberate effort to balance transparency with risk reduction amid logistical challenges.

Publication Phases

November 2010 redacted release

On November 28, 2010, commenced the redacted release of diplomatic cables by publishing an initial batch of approximately 220 documents on its website, with redactions applied to protect sensitive sources. This marked the start of a phased disclosure involving collaboration with major international media outlets—, , , , and —which had obtained advance access to the full archive of over 251,000 cables for independent verification, contextual analysis, and selective publication over subsequent months. The staggered approach contrasted with prior dumps, prioritizing harm minimization through review rather than immediate mass release of the unfiltered dataset. The rollout occurred amid elevated pressures on following its April 2010 publication of the "Collateral Murder" video, which had drawn intense legal and operational scrutiny to founder and the organization. Logistically, the process involved manual excisions of names and details deemed risky, enabling partners to escalate releases gradually—reaching thousands of cables—while handled direct postings in tranches to facilitate ongoing assessment. In anticipation, the U.S. State Department issued a formal letter to Assange on , , explicitly warning that disseminating the cables would inflict "irreparable harm" to U.S. , endanger lives of informants and diplomats, and disrupt global relationships. This entreaty, delivered by the Department's legal adviser, underscored empirical risks based on the cables' classified nature, yet proceeded unchecked, triggering observable diplomatic contingencies as initial publications emerged.

Key contents and revelations

The diplomatic cables revealed candid, unfiltered evaluations of foreign leaders by US officials, often diverging from public diplomatic niceties. Italian Prime Minister was portrayed as "feckless, vain, and ineffective," with diplomats noting his frequent late-night partying that left him "physically and politically diminished" the following day. Similar assessments targeted Russian Prime Minister as an "alpha male" figure dominating interactions, while highlighting concerns over Berlusconi's close ties to Putin potentially enabling personal profiteering from opaque energy deals. Gulf Arab states, particularly , privately pressed the for aggressive action against , with King Abdullah repeatedly urging strikes to "cut off the head of the snake" and destroy its nuclear program, contrasting their public moderation. Cables also documented activities, including Chinese military hackers conducting systematic intrusions into systems; a 2009 dispatch linked Unit 61398 to the cyber campaign that targeted and stole , marking early attribution of state-sponsored theft. US diplomatic maneuvering on Guantanamo Bay detainees involved persistent pressure on allies to accept transfers, with cables detailing offers of aid, reassurances on security, and direct appeals to overcome domestic opposition in recipient nations like and . These efforts underscored pragmatic trade-offs, prioritizing closure of the facility over potential risks to detainees' treatment abroad. Broader themes exposed inconsistencies in advocacy, as US envoys overlooked allied corruption and abuses—such as in or —to secure cooperation on , revealing private tolerance for practices publicly condemned. Such disclosures illustrated routine in statecraft, where blunt internal critiques and sustain alliances amid conflicting interests.

Media collaborations and coverage

WikiLeaks established partnerships with prominent international media organizations, including , , , , and , providing them with advance access to the diplomatic cables starting in mid-2010 to facilitate verification, contextual analysis, and additional redaction of sensitive details such as informant identities. These agreements aimed to mitigate risks while enabling selective publication of analyzed excerpts, contrasting with WikiLeaks' initial plan for broader disclosure. The collaborating outlets produced dozens of investigative articles in the initial phase following the , 2010, rollout, focusing on approximately 220 cables initially posted by alongside thematic summaries of over 251,000 documents spanning 1966 to February 2010. Coverage highlighted revelations such as U.S. diplomats' blunt evaluations of global leaders—including descriptions of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's eccentricities and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's mafia-like associations—and exposures of in allied governments, framing these as evidence of inconsistencies in U.S. diplomatic rhetoric versus practice. This selective emphasis on policy embarrassments, such as U.S. pressure on allies over intelligence sharing and discrepancies, amplified narratives critiquing American hegemony, with outlets like and generating millions of page views in the weeks following publication. Mainstream coverage, shaped by institutional tendencies toward skepticism of U.S. , often prioritized transparency benefits over immediate assessments of operational risks, such as compromised sources or alliance frictions evidenced in cables detailing strained ties with partners like and . Critics from conservative perspectives, including U.S. officials and commentators, faulted the media partners for abetting the dissemination of unredacted sensitivities, arguing that the framing normalized leaks as journalistic triumphs while underreporting verifiable diplomatic strains, such as heightened tensions with over counterterrorism disclosures. The collaborations ultimately fractured, with citing editorial independence amid accusations of ' unreliability, underscoring tensions between traditional media's verification protocols and ' absolutist transparency ethos.

September 2011 unredacted release

On September 2, 2011, published a searchable online database containing its complete archive of 251,287 unredacted diplomatic cables, making the full set publicly accessible without prior anonymization of sensitive details. This release stemmed from a prior security lapse: an encrypted backup file of the cables, shared by with for collaborative review, was decrypted after a appeared in the newspaper's February 2011 book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, authored by journalists David Leigh and . The passphrase enabled third parties to unlock and distribute the unredacted file via file-sharing services starting around August 31, 2011, prompting to accelerate its own full disclosure to regain control over dissemination. WikiLeaks attributed the breach directly to The Guardian's publication of the passphrase, which it described as a reckless error compromising the integrity of redactions applied to protect vulnerable individuals. The unredacted cables revealed previously obscured identifiers, including names of activists, dissidents, and intelligence sources—such as Chinese contacts cooperating with U.S. diplomats on sensitive issues—as well as occasional like numbers. While WikiLeaks maintained that the majority of exposed names were already public or low-risk, the move diverged sharply from its November 2010 pledges to systematically redact informant identities and other compromising elements before any phased releases. The publication drew immediate condemnation from WikiLeaks' former media partners, including , , , , and , who jointly stated that it "may put sources at risk" and undermined collaborative efforts to minimize harm. U.S. officials expressed concern over potential exposure, with the State Department indicating it would review implications for ongoing diplomatic relationships, though it noted many at-risk individuals had already relocated or received protection following earlier leaks. This episode intensified global scrutiny of ' operational reliability and escalated pressures on founder , linking directly to heightened U.S. investigative focus amid fears of broader source endangerment.

Immediate Reactions and Disruptions

US government and intelligence responses

On November 29, 2010, condemned the release of over 250,000 diplomatic cables as "not just an attack on America’s interests" but "an attack on the ," emphasizing its threat to alliances, negotiations, and global security. She stated that the disclosures "put people’s lives in danger, threaten our , and undermine our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems," highlighting risks such as , torture, or death for informants whose identities were potentially exposed. Clinton announced aggressive steps to hold those responsible accountable and implement enhanced security measures, while expressing confidence that diplomatic partnerships would endure. The State Department, under spokesman P.J. Crowley, described the leaks as causing "significant damage" to U.S. diplomacy, differing from assessments that downplayed immediate harm. Officials initiated interagency damage assessments to evaluate impacts on sources, operations, and foreign relations, incorporating feedback from diplomats who reported potential risks to confidential contacts and trust in U.S. assurances. While initial claims stressed life-endangering consequences based on such diplomatic input, no specific deaths were publicly attributed to the disclosures in contemporaneous government statements. In response, the administration explored legal actions under the 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute leakers and publishers, with senators like and urging its application against WikiLeaks founder for disseminating classified material that risked . The FBI, already investigating potential sources following earlier intelligence leaks, expanded efforts to trace the cables' origins, focusing on insider threats within military and intelligence networks. These measures aimed to deter future breaches and restore operational integrity, though long-term effects included reported erosion of trust in classified communications per subsequent reviews.

International diplomatic backlash

The publication of the U.S. diplomatic cables elicited widespread condemnation from foreign governments, who argued that the disclosures eroded mutual trust essential to candid bilateral exchanges and heightened risks to . European allies, in particular, highlighted strains in longstanding partnerships; British officials registered irritation over cables portraying U.S. frustrations with the UK's perceived insecurities in the transatlantic alliance and critiques of domestic figures like former . German authorities expressed outrage at revelations detailing U.S. efforts to dissuade from prosecuting CIA personnel linked to extraordinary renditions, prompting internal debates on intelligence-sharing vulnerabilities and even a temporary "spy hunt" within diplomatic circles. In the Gulf region, Saudi officials adopted a stance of official disinterest toward the leaks, despite cables exposing repeated private exhortations from King Abdullah to U.S. leaders to launch military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities—a hawkish position aligning with but amplifying Riyadh's public rhetoric against . This exposure, while not prompting overt Saudi recriminations, underscored asymmetries in allied expectations for discretion amid shared strategic threats. Adversarial powers leveraged the incident differently; , portrayed in cables as orchestrating extensive cyber operations including against , swiftly censored domestically to suppress dissemination, reflecting acute sensitivity to foreign scrutiny of its internal controls. , meanwhile, selectively amplified cables that bolstered its defenses in "history wars" against Western critiques of Soviet-era actions, using them to propagate narratives of U.S. hypocrisy in global affairs. African responses varied, with Kenyan government figures vehemently rejecting U.S. embassy characterizations of the country as a "swamp of flourishing " involving high-level officials barred from U.S. entry, viewing the assessments as unduly harsh and damaging to . Yet, the same cables corroborated ' empirically grounded warnings of elite graft risking escalation to post-2007 election-style violence, prompting some domestic analysts to frame the revelations as overdue mechanisms despite official denials. Across these cases, the backlash prioritized diplomatic over transparency, with governments decrying the leaks as irresponsible while U.S. analyses often proved prescient in identifying and instability drivers—insights overshadowed by the immediate erosion of frank reporting.

Cyber attacks and service denials against

Following the release of U.S. diplomatic cables on November 28, 2010, experienced distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks that overwhelmed its servers with traffic, causing intermittent downtime starting that day. The attacks escalated, with reporting volumes exceeding 10 gigabits per second by November 30, 2010, though security analysts described the scale as modest compared to other major incidents at 2-4 Gbps. These disruptions coincided with the cable publications but lacked publicly verified attribution to state actors, though alleged involvement by government agencies and corporations. Private hosting providers severed ties under U.S. political pressure, amplifying service denials. On December 1, 2010, terminated ' hosting after an inquiry from the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, led by Senator , citing violations of terms of service related to hosting potentially illegal content. This forced a shift to European providers, contributing to further outages. Similarly, domain registrar EveryDNS dropped ' domains on December 4, 2010, due to threats to its infrastructure from the attacks and associated risks. Financial service providers aligned with government signals to isolate WikiLeaks economically. PayPal froze its donation account on December 5, 2010, following a Department letter deeming WikiLeaks' activities illegal under anti-terrorism laws. Visa and suspended payment processing for WikiLeaks donations by December 7, 2010, effectively blocking a major funding avenue despite no direct legal violations cited. These actions, while framed by companies as risk mitigation, demonstrated coordination between private entities and U.S. authorities to restrict operations without formal judicial orders. In response, the hacktivist collective Anonymous launched Operation Payback to counter the blockades, initiating DDoS attacks against on December 4, 2010, and extending to Visa and sites. This defensive campaign, originating from online forums like , temporarily disrupted the targeted firms but drew scrutiny. To maintain accessibility amid outages, encouraged mirror sites, resulting in rapid proliferation: over 355 new mirrors by December 6, 2010, and more than 500 globally by that week's end. These decentralized copies ensured continued cable availability, underscoring the resilience of distributed hosting against centralized disruptions. In December 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a secret subpoena to Twitter as part of a grand jury investigation into the WikiLeaks disclosures of classified information, demanding extensive user data on Julian Assange and three associates: Icelandic parliamentarian Birgitta Jónsdóttir, American computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, and Dutch hacker Rop Gonggrijp. The order sought account details, IP addresses, email contacts, and location information dating back to November 2009, but initially included a nondisclosure requirement preventing Twitter from notifying the users. Twitter notified the targeted individuals in January 2011 after a court lifted the gag order, prompting them to file a motion to unseal the subpoena and quash it on First Amendment and privacy grounds, arguing it chilled protected speech and association related to journalism and activism. Federal courts rejected the challenges, with U.S. Magistrate Judge Theodore Chuang ruling in March that the targets lacked standing to contest non-content data requests under the , and a subsequent appeals in upholding the DOJ's access to the records while narrowing the scope to exclude certain contact details. These rulings highlighted tensions between investigations and First Amendment protections for journalistic sources and collaborators, revealing the breadth of U.S. efforts on supporters without yielding immediate charges from the subpoenaed data alone. Concurrently, in November 2010, Swedish authorities issued a for Assange on allegations of from August 2010 encounters with two women, leading to his surrender to British police on December 7, 2010, and initial detention before release on pending hearings. Assange contested the , claiming the Swedish probe was politically motivated to facilitate his transfer to U.S. custody for questioning over , a fear amplified by contemporaneous U.S. investigative actions. UK courts approved to in 2011, but Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy in in 2012 to claim asylum and avoid compliance; Swedish prosecutors ultimately dropped the case in November 2019, citing insufficient evidence and elapsed time, with no convictions resulting. These parallel pressures—subpoenas probing digital footprints and leveraging foreign allegations—intensified scrutiny on Assange and affiliates in 2010-2011 without producing standalone prosecutions, though they foreshadowed broader legal pursuits.

Prosecution and sentencing of Chelsea Manning

Chelsea Manning was arrested on May 27, 2010, at Forward Operating Base Hammer near , , following suspicions of leaking classified materials to ; she was transferred four days later to in and subsequently to the . Manning faced initial detention under pretrial confinement at , , where conditions included restrictive measures such as , prompting legal challenges over her treatment. Formal charges were preferred on July 5, 2010, under the (UCMJ), including violations of Articles 92 (failure to obey order) and 134 (general article for conduct prejudicial to good order), related to downloading and disseminating over 700,000 classified documents and videos. The proceeded at , with entering a guilty plea on February 28, 2013, to 10 of the charges, including unauthorized disclosure of , while contesting intent under the Espionage Act. On July 30, 2013, a judge convicted of 17 out of 22 counts, including six counts of violating the Espionage Act for willfully communicating national defense information to an unauthorized party, but acquitted her of the charge of aiding the enemy under UCMJ Article 104, which requires proof of intent to aid a hostile force during wartime and carries penalties akin to . Prosecutors did not pursue a charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2381, which demands overt acts giving aid and comfort to enemies of the with treasonous intent, opting instead for espionage-related offenses that do not require proving harm to or enemy aid. Sentencing occurred on August 21, 2013, with Manning receiving 35 years' confinement—the longest ever for a U.S. leak case—along with reduction to the lowest (Private E-1), forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. During her military imprisonment at , , Manning attempted at least once in 2016, leading to disciplinary action for under UCMJ, which critics described as exacerbating her struggles amid and isolation. On January 17, 2017, President commuted Manning's sentence to time served plus four months, factoring in her nearly seven years of confinement since arrest, good conduct credits, and clemency considerations; she was released on May 17, 2017. In 2019, Manning was subpoenaed to testify before a federal investigating but refused, citing ethical objections to the secretive process and her prior disclosures; she was held in civil starting March 8, 2019, briefly released when the grand jury's term expired, and re-incarcerated on May 16, 2019, accruing daily fines totaling over $256,000 until her release on March 12, 2020, following the grand jury's expiration amid her second reported on March 11.

Julian Assange's involvement and outcomes

Julian Assange, founder of , played a central role in soliciting and publishing the U.S. diplomatic cables leaked by , as evidenced by chat logs from 2010 where Assange, using the handle "," communicated with Manning during the submission of materials, offering guidance on handling and encouraging further disclosures. These interactions formed the basis of U.S. allegations that Assange conspired with Manning to obtain and disclose , crossing into active facilitation rather than passive receipt. To evade potential to over unrelated allegations—later dropped—Assange sought and received political asylum from on August 16, 2012, entering their embassy where he resided for nearly seven years under restrictive conditions. During this period, the U.S. pursued charges against him, unsealing an indictment on , 2019, for conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and unlawfully obtaining and disseminating national defense information related to the cables and other leaks. revoked his asylum that day amid deteriorating relations, leading to his arrest by authorities inside the embassy on a U.S. warrant alongside charges for breaching , which carried a 50-week sentence he served in Belmarsh Prison. Extradition proceedings ensued, with UK courts initially approving transfer in 2021 but allowing appeals on grounds, including suicide risk and potential harsh U.S. conditions; higher courts upheld in 2022, prompting further challenges. On June 25, 2024, in a U.S. federal court on Saipan in the —chosen for Assange's reluctance to enter mainland U.S. territory—Assange pleaded guilty to one felony count under the Espionage Act of conspiring to obtain and disclose tied to Manning's leaks, receiving a sentence of (over five years in UK custody) and immediate release, returning to . Assange's actions have divided observers: supporters, including press freedom advocates, argue his work merits journalistic protections under the First Amendment, framing the publications as exposing government misconduct without direct harm to sources. Critics, however, contend he functioned as an adversarial operative rather than a , citing ' post-2010 alignments with Russian interests—such as selective releases benefiting narratives on U.S. elections—despite no proven direct intelligence ties, and viewing the plea as validation of aiding unauthorized disclosures that compromised diplomatic operations. These perspectives highlight tensions over whether Assange's methods prioritized transparency or enabled foreign exploitation of U.S. secrets.

Assessments of national security damage

Internal U.S. government reviews conducted in the aftermath of the 2010-2011 releases concluded that the disclosure of over 250,000 diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to interests abroad, despite public statements from the Obama administration characterizing the harm as "substantial." These assessments emphasized embarrassment to diplomatic relations over tangible losses in capabilities or assets, with officials noting that much of the material involved routine analysis rather than sensitive operational details. The State Department maintained that the leaks compromised sources and methods, leading to the relocation or extraction of certain informants, though verifiable instances of such actions directly attributable to the cables remained sparse and unquantified in declassified summaries. Claims of lethal harm to informants surfaced sporadically, including unconfirmed reports of executions targeting individuals named in cables, but no comprehensive empirical evidence emerged linking the leaks to widespread casualties or systemic compromise of networks. Broader intelligence community evaluations, such as those referenced in later analyses, indicated that while adversaries potentially improved their operational in response—gleaned from candid U.S. assessments of foreign vulnerabilities—the disclosures also highlighted American foresight into threats like North Korean nuclear activities, without precipitating verifiable escalations in adversary capabilities. Over time, experts concurred that any initial disruptions faded, with no documented mass compromise of ongoing operations or deterrence postures. The leaks underscored tensions in practices, where the sheer volume of protected material—encompassing analytical insights as much as raw secrets—amplified perceived risks, yet internal assessments revealed that much classified content served diplomatic candor rather than existential security needs, prompting a reevaluation of overclassification's role in inflating threat narratives. This perspective aligned with findings that the primary enduring impact was a "" on source willingness to share unvarnished , rather than irreversible erosion of core capabilities.

Broader Geopolitical Impacts

Effects on US foreign relations

The release of the diplomatic cables in November 2010 prompted immediate expressions of distrust from foreign governments toward US embassy operations, as unflattering assessments of leaders—such as descriptions of Italian Prime Minister as "vain" and ineffective, or Russian President as playing "Robin to Putin's Batman"—circulated widely and fueled public diplomatic frictions. These revelations strained bilateral ties temporarily, with affected parties like and issuing protests and demanding explanations, though many governments downplayed long-term impacts to preserve alliances. In cases where cables exposed mutual concerns, such as Saudi Arabia's private urging for US military action against Iran's nuclear program, the disclosures corroborated aligned interests and arguably facilitated behind-the-scenes coordination despite public embarrassment. US diplomats reported a prompt on host-country interactions, with foreign officials becoming more guarded in conversations and sources declining meetings out of leak fears, thereby hindering intelligence gathering and policy formulation in the ensuing months. Embassy reporting shifted toward brevity and avoidance of sensitive characterizations, as evidenced by former diplomats' assessments that candid analysis essential for Washington decision-making was curtailed to mitigate exposure risks. This caution extended to policy adjustments, including the State Department's rapid implementation of enhanced cybersecurity measures and directives to minimize cable usage for high-risk discussions, favoring secure phone calls or visits instead. The leaks also prompted heightened classification protocols across US missions, with instructions issued in late to review and purge unneeded sensitive data from networks, which some analysts contended reduced by overburdening staff with compliance without proportionally enhancing security. While official State Department reviews in asserted minimal enduring relational damage, contemporaneous accounts from practitioners highlighted persistent alliance frictions, such as in where cable disclosures complicated troop extension talks by eroding negotiating leverage. Overall, these short-to-medium-term effects manifested as tactical reticence rather than outright policy overhauls, preserving core alliances amid adjusted communication norms.

Connections to Arab Spring and regional unrest

US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks in November 2010 contained detailed assessments of under Tunisian President , including a July 2009 cable from the embassy in describing the regime as increasingly kleptocratic, with the president's family exerting undue influence over the economy and fostering widespread resentment among . Earlier cables, such as one from , warned that " in the inner circle is growing" and that public awareness of it was heightening, potentially threatening stability amid rising unemployment and economic disparities. Similar analyses for highlighted vulnerabilities in Hosni Mubarak's regime, noting elite and youth disillusionment as factors that could precipitate unrest, though diplomats expressed ambivalence about pushing for reforms given strategic alliances. In , the cables gained traction after local activists translated and disseminated them via platforms like Tunileaks, with some protesters citing the revelations of Ben Ali family excesses—such as asset seizures and monopolistic business practices—as fuel for demonstrations. founder claimed the publications "spurred" the uprisings by exposing hypocrisies, and groups like described the leaks as a "catalyst" alongside media partners. However, empirical assessments indicate the cables amplified pre-existing grievances rather than initiating them; public knowledge of Ben Ali's predated the leaks, with protests erupting on December 17, 2010, following fruit vendor Mohamed Bouazizi's over economic desperation, not direct reference to the documents. Causal claims linking the leaks to the Arab Spring's spread— from Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution (culminating in Ben Ali's flight on January 14, 2011) to Egypt's Tahrir Square protests (January 25, 2011)—overstate their role, as structural factors like youth unemployment exceeding 30% in Tunisia and authoritarian repression were dominant drivers, evidenced by the uprisings' ignition through local incidents independent of the cables' timing. The disclosures underscored US awareness of regional instabilities yet continued support for autocrats, revealing policy inconsistencies that later highlighted failures in preempting unrest, rather than crediting leakers with revolutionary agency. In Egypt, while cables documented regime frailties, their impact was marginal compared to domestic mobilizations via social networks and labor strikes.

Revelations on global actors and hypocrisies

The diplomatic cables exposed eccentric personal traits of Libyan leader , portraying him as mercurial with severe phobias, including an aversion to flying over bodies of water that necessitated circuitous travel routes, and a reliance on a "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse for medical and companionship needs during international trips. diplomats further detailed his insistence on tent accommodations even at foreign dignitaries' residences and his entourage of female bodyguards, highlighting behaviors that strained diplomatic protocols while underscoring his manipulative style in negotiations. Cables from US interactions with Spanish investigators described Russia as a virtual "mafia state" characterized by systemic , where Kremlin-linked figures collaborated with for illicit activities such as business , rival , manipulation, and assassinations that the state could not officially sanction. These assessments identified specific ties between high-level Russian officials, including those close to , and mafia operations extending to , revealing a hybrid governance model blending with criminal networks. Regarding Iran's nuclear program, cables conveyed US intelligence evaluations that Tehran had overcome key technical barriers to produce highly suitable for bomb cores, granting it the foundational ability for rapid weaponization. Private communications from Arab allies, such as repeated entreaties from Saudi King Abdullah to "cut off the head of the snake" by bombing Iranian facilities, exposed regional fears of Iranian dominance that contrasted with public diplomatic reticence, while Israeli officials assessed a narrowing window—six to eighteen months—for preventive action before Iran achieved breakout capacity. These disclosures affirmed US diplomats' accurate foresight on proliferation risks, countering prior optimistic assumptions of Iranian restraint under international pressure. US cables also illuminated hypocrisies in American foreign policy, including aggressive behind-the-scenes arm-twisting of allies to secure support for the , such as offers of economic incentives or threats of withheld aid to reluctant partners like , whose resistance to US entreaties ultimately contributed to diplomatic strains. This approach mirrored the duplicity critiqued in foreign actors, as the US publicly championed while pragmatically overlooking abuses by strategic partners—evident in detailed reporting on allies' internal repression that did not disrupt cooperation on or resource access. Such revelations underscored inconsistencies between stated ideals and imperatives, with cables revealing naive overconfidence in post-invasion Iraqi stability despite early warnings of sectarian fractures fueled by external meddling.

Controversies and Debates

Ethical tensions between transparency and security

The release of over 250,000 diplomatic cables by in ignited debates over the ethical balance between governmental transparency and the imperatives of . Proponents of transparency contended that such disclosures fulfill a fundamental democratic obligation by enabling public scrutiny of decisions, arguing that often shields misconduct or inefficiencies from . This perspective posits that in open societies, withholding information from citizens undermines , as voters cannot effectively oversee elected officials without access to underlying facts. Critics, however, emphasized that wholesale leaks violate oaths of taken by officials, potentially compromising sources, operational methods, and the trust essential for . They argued that candid diplomatic reporting—necessary for accurate assessments of foreign leaders and threats—relies on assurances of non-disclosure; breaches erode this, leading to more guarded communications that hinder effective policymaking. U.S. , for instance, stated that the disclosures threatened and global cooperative efforts by exposing sensitive assessments. Even where overclassification occurs, opponents maintained, indiscriminate mass releases exceed targeted and risk broader systemic damage without proportionate public benefit. These tensions manifested along ideological lines, with left-leaning commentators often framing the leaks as a democratizing force against opaque power structures, praising their role in highlighting policy inconsistencies despite risks. Right-leaning perspectives, conversely, frequently characterized the actions as a treacherous that prioritized ideological disruption over institutional and allied relations. Bipartisan governmental critiques underscored security primacy, yet the divide reflected deeper priors: transparency advocates prioritizing informational equity, while security proponents invoking realist necessities of statecraft where absolute openness could invite exploitation by adversaries.

Claims of source endangerment and verifiable harms

The U.S. State Department asserted that the publications of diplomatic cables risked compromising sources by disclosing identities of informants and collaborators in sensitive regions. Officials, including then-Secretary of State , warned on November 29, 2010, that unredacted releases could lead to reprisals against individuals providing information to U.S. diplomats, potentially including arrests or executions in authoritarian states. One specific claim involved Iranian national Majid Jamali Fashi, executed by hanging on May 15, 2012, for the alleged assassination of nuclear scientist Masoud Ali Mohammadi on behalf of Mossad; reports indicated that a 2008 U.S. diplomatic cable detailing Iranian nuclear program vulnerabilities, published by WikiLeaks, may have aided Iranian authorities in identifying and prosecuting him. WikiLeaks rejected culpability, stating the cable contained no direct identifiers and that Iran's regime routinely executed perceived spies independently of external leaks. Diplomatic cables also referenced Afghan local sources and tribal figures cooperating with U.S. efforts, raising fears of targeting similar to exposures in contemporaneous war logs; over 100 such names appeared in unredacted cables, amplifying risks in conflict zones where collaboration carried lethal consequences. U.S. and assessments highlighted potential for reduced cooperation from Afghan partners due to perceived betrayal of confidentiality. Verifiable direct fatalities remain limited and contested, with no comprehensive tally confirmed by independent investigators; a December 1, 2010, review noted accusations of endangering dissidents but lacked evidence of widespread executions tied specifically to cables, contrasting with broader intelligence community concerns over operational disruptions. Quantifiable impacts included documented declines in source recruitment, as foreign partners cited eroded trust post-leak, though causal attribution to cables versus aggregate disclosures proved challenging. The September 2, 2011, unredacted dump of 251,287 cables followed a Guardian-published key that compromised the full archive, prompting to argue that withholding would allow adversaries to cross-reference redacted versions for targeted harms, whereas total enabled global verification and mitigation efforts. Critics, including former media collaborators, condemned the move for exposing thousands of unvetted names without prior consultation, prioritizing immediate transparency over incremental safeguards.

Criticisms of leakers and publishers from security perspectives

Critics from U.S. circles, including State Department officials, described Chelsea Manning's transfer of over 250,000 diplomatic cables to as an act of disloyalty rather than principled , emphasizing the indiscriminate nature of the release that encompassed trivial administrative details alongside potentially sensitive assessments. This mass dump, totaling around 251,287 cables spanning 1966 to 2010, bypassed any targeted or contextual filtering, thereby multiplying risks to diplomatic operations without equivalent safeguards seen in official declassifications. Prosecution arguments in Manning's 2013 highlighted how such unvetted dissemination equated to aiding unauthorized parties, even if the most severe charge of directly aiding the enemy was not sustained. WikiLeaks' handling of the material drew parallel rebukes for recklessness, as the organization's phased publications from November 2010 onward included insufficient protections, culminating in a unredacted dump that exposed covert assets and human sources embedded in foreign governments. U.S. officials, such as then-Spokesperson P.J. Crowley, condemned the releases as endangering personnel by eroding the confidentiality essential to candid , contrasting sharply with controlled leaks that mitigate harms through review processes. Security analysts pointed to verifiable instances where the cables furnished adversaries with tactical advantages, notably a November cable enumerating vulnerabilities—such as power grids and transportation hubs—in and other nations, which could facilitate terrorist targeting or sabotage. British Foreign Secretary explicitly warned that such details risked aiding terrorists by providing blueprints for disruption, underscoring how the leaks deviated from journalistic norms by prioritizing volume over verification of downstream threats. Further criticisms framed ' editorial choices as ideologically skewed, with a pattern of disclosures that amplified anti-U.S. narratives while exhibiting selectivity; for example, founder Julian Assange's organization rejected substantial leaks damaging to the government during periods of heightened U.S.- tensions, raising questions about and potential alignment with adversarial interests. This asymmetry, per U.S. intelligence assessments, indirectly bolstered enemy by validating critiques of American foreign policy without equivalent scrutiny of regimes hostile to U.S. security, thereby eroding strategic deterrence.

Counterarguments on government accountability and overclassification

Defenders of the leaks maintain that the diplomatic cables exemplify chronic overclassification within the U.S. State Department, with numerous documents designated SECRET despite documenting unremarkable details, such as foreign leaders' alcohol consumption at events or ethnographic notes on weddings, which posed no evident risk to national security. This pattern aligns with broader government critiques, where classifiers err toward secrecy to evade personal liability, resulting in an estimated $18 billion annual cost for storage and handling, alongside inhibited interagency cooperation and public discourse on policy. The disclosures catalyzed scrutiny of these practices, including December 2010 congressional hearings that prioritized overclassification reforms over immediate leak repercussions, reinforcing prior legislative efforts like the 2010 Reducing Over-Classification Act to impose stricter review standards and accountability for unwarranted designations. Subsequent Freedom of Information Act litigation, such as ACLU challenges for cables already publicized by , exposed ongoing executive resistance to declassifying equivalent information through formal channels, thereby highlighting the leaks' role in compelling procedural transparency absent voluntary disclosure. While not disputing isolated operational harms, proponents assert that entrenched secrecy enables graver systemic failures, as illustrated by the U.S. Intelligence Community's erroneous prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs—flawed judgments shielded by classification that evaded timely correction and fueled the 2003 invasion. In this view, the cables' unfiltered candor on diplomatic machinations affirms the public's prerogative to scrutinize taxpayer-funded activities, countering opacity that historically permitted policy distortions under the guise of protection.

Long-term Legacy

Influence on whistleblowing and information policy

The United States diplomatic cables leak prompted significant enhancements in leak prevention measures across federal agencies. In response, the Obama administration implemented stricter controls on , such as prohibiting the use of USB drives for classified data transfer without authorization, to mitigate risks exposed by the unauthorized exfiltration of over 250,000 cables by Chelsea Manning. Additionally, agencies adopted detection programs, including continuous monitoring and auditing tools to identify anomalous data access patterns, as deployed by the State Department to track potential unauthorized activities. These reforms, codified in part by 13587 signed by President Obama on October 10, 2011, emphasized sharing while reinforcing compartmentalization to limit access on a need-to-know basis. Legal frameworks for whistleblowing faced heightened scrutiny and risks following the leak, with the invoked in Manning's 2013 conviction for aiding the enemy through disclosures, marking an aggressive prosecutorial stance under the Obama administration that targeted seven Espionage Act cases by 2017. This approach paralleled the 2013 revelations, where similar charges under the Act underscored amplified perils for potential whistleblowers, as both incidents demonstrated the feasibility of mass data extraction and its severe repercussions, including lifelong imprisonment without defenses. Such prosecutions contributed to a on internal dissent within intelligence and diplomatic communities, where employees reported and reluctance to challenge policies amid intensified and loyalty oaths. On the policy front, the leak accelerated experimentation with technology for information management, including artificial intelligence pilots for declassification. In 2023, the State Department launched an AI-assisted program to review and declassify diplomatic cables, achieving 97% accuracy comparable to human reviewers while processing volumes unattainable manually, as part of broader efforts to reduce overclassification burdens exposed by past leaks. Conversely, the disclosures, alongside Snowden's leaks, spurred adoption of encrypted communication tools among government personnel and whistleblowers seeking secure channels. Platforms like Signal saw exponential growth post-2013, with daily downloads surging from thousands to millions by 2021, driven by endorsements from privacy advocates and recognition of vulnerabilities highlighted in both leak events, thereby fostering alternatives to vulnerable government systems.

Retrospective analyses of diplomatic candor

In retrospective assessments conducted a decade after the leaks, former U.S. diplomats acknowledged that the disclosures prompted a shift toward greater caution in official reporting, effectively introducing to mitigate risks of future exposures. Barbara Leaf, a retired career who served as U.S. to from 2014 to 2016, noted that post-leak practices included avoiding the naming of average citizens in cables due to fears of harassment or retaliation, a change she observed persisting years after the event. Similarly, analyses from diplomatic associations highlighted how the unvarnished candor in the leaked cables—such as blunt evaluations of foreign leaders and policies—led diplomats to hesitate in employing similar language in subsequent dispatches, fearing compromise through hacks or insiders. This caution extended to informal channels, with officials increasingly relying on ephemeral methods like or verbal briefings over formal cables to preserve some degree of honest assessment while minimizing written records. Despite these adaptations, reflections praised the pre-leak cables for their empirical accuracy and pragmatic insights, portraying U.S. diplomacy not as conspiratorial maneuvering but as grounded informed by on-the-ground observations. A 2020 review by the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training commended the reports as "hard-hitting and accurate," revealing routine diplomatic —such as intelligence-gathering on allies and candid assessments of —rather than hidden cabals or exaggerated . German broadcaster DW's 10-year anniversary analysis of Cablegate similarly described the cables as providing an "unvarnished look" at U.S. , demystifying processes like espionage directives at the as standard operational necessities rather than nefarious plots. These evaluations underscored how the leaks exposed diplomacy's essence as interest-driven , aligning with first-hand accounts from serving officers who valued the cables' utility in informing without embellishment. However, this heightened vigilance has been critiqued for diminishing diplomatic effectiveness, particularly in crisis response, by diluting the depth of institutional knowledge available to policymakers. The Atlantic's 2019 examination of leak-era trends argued that self-censorship in formal reporting erodes the "institutional memory" essential for nuanced , as diplomats prioritize brevity and ambiguity over comprehensive analysis to evade potential leaks. Former officials like reported tangible relational strains, including foreign contacts' reluctance to share freely, which compounded caution and slowed information flows during volatile periods. While some, like ex-diplomat Mary Thompson-Jones, contended that broader shifts in technology and global transparency have overshadowed the leaks' isolated impact, the consensus in these retrospectives holds that the event entrenched a more guarded reporting culture, trading candor for security at the expense of agile execution.

Enduring effects on trust in institutions

The diplomatic cables leak exacerbated long-standing public cynicism toward U.S. foreign policy, with immediate polls capturing a widespread view that such disclosures damaged national interests and diplomatic efficacy. A December 2010 Washington Post/ABC News survey found that 67% of respondents believed the release harmed the public interest, a sentiment that echoed in subsequent reflections on eroded confidence in institutional secrecy. By 2019, former U.S. ambassadors described the cables as a persisting "toxic gift," noting ongoing damage to trust with international counterparts due to exposed candid assessments that strained bilateral relations. This contributed to a realist recalibration in public and scholarly perceptions, where the leaks' portrayal of pragmatic power politics over stated ideals validated critiques of overly optimistic interventionist policies. Media institutions faced credibility challenges from accusations of selective curation during the leaks' dissemination, as partnering outlets like redacted and framed content in ways that prioritized narrative coherence over full transparency. A analysis from December 2010 revealed that 51% of those deeming the leaks harmful also viewed news organizations' reporting as excessive, highlighting tensions between journalistic access and perceived bias in emphasis. Over time, this fostered skepticism toward mainstream media's role in coverage, with post-Cablegate commentary noting a decline in traditional outlets' authority amid rises in alternative sourcing. The State Department responded by prioritizing trust restoration through intensified initiatives, acknowledging in late 2010 a commitment to repair any violated confidences with affected nations. Despite these efforts, the leaks' archival value endures in academia, where over 250,000 cables have informed post-2010 studies on diplomatic practices, though their salience in real-time debates has notably receded by 2025.

References

  1. https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/
  2. https://www.dw.com/en/wikileaks-cablegate-10-years-on-unvarnished-look-at-us-foreign-policy/a-55755239
  3. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11858990
  4. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/28/newspapers-publish-leaked-diplomatic-cables-nov-28-2010-260056
  5. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/wikileaks-founder-pleads-guilty-and-sentenced-conspiring-obtain-and-disclose-classified
  6. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09592296.2019.1557416
  7. https://adst.org/2020/03/wikileaks-the-revelation-that-shook-u-s-diplomacy/
  8. https://www.npr.org/2010/12/02/131753417/diplomatic-cables-the-ties-that-bind-foreign-policy
  9. https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/hks-communications-program/files/pp_sri_kulkarni_and_yotam_goren_4_10_17.pdf
  10. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11863618
  11. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/siprnet-america-stores-secret-cables
  12. https://fam.state.gov/fam/05fam/05fam0870.html
  13. https://fam.state.gov/fam/05fam/05fam0480.html
  14. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/how-us-embassy-cables-leaked
  15. https://fam.state.gov/fam/05fah01/05fah010230.html
  16. https://www.britannica.com/topic/WikiLeaks
  17. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11949341
  18. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/11/712306713/12-years-of-disruption-a-wikileaks-timeline
  19. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/11/julian-assange-six-wikileaks-most-memorable-revelations/3434371002/
  20. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/01/wikileaks-prepares-unredacted-us-cables
  21. https://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:Understanding_submissions
  22. https://www.wired.com/2015/05/wikileaks-finally-brings-back-submission-system-secrets/
  23. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/feb/05/wikileaks-collaboration-distrust-legal-threats
  24. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11874276
  25. https://www.wired.com/2011/12/cables-scripts-manning/
  26. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/08/chelsea-manning-transgender-secret-us-army
  27. https://www.wired.com/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/
  28. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/us-leaks-bradley-manning-logs
  29. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/bradley-manning-trial-plea-statement
  30. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/04/adrian-lamo-testifies-bradley-manning
  31. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/february-18/wikileaks-publishes-first-documents-leaked-by-chelsea-manning
  32. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/world/09breach.html
  33. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/magazine/the-long-lonely-road-of-chelsea-manning.html
  34. https://www.thecairoreview.com/essays/the-trial-of-chelsea-manning/
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html
  36. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/inside-wikileaks-harm-minimization-process/
  37. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/ex-wikileaks-spokesman-said-to-have-destroyed-thousands-of-unpublished-docs/
  38. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/sep/02/wikileaks-publishes-cache-unredacted-cables
  39. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html
  40. https://wikileaks.org/Press-Release-Secret-US-Embassy.html
  41. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable-leak-diplomacy-crisis
  42. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us-politics/text-of-state-department-letter-to-wikileaks-idUSTRE6AR1E4/
  43. https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2010/11/152078.htm
  44. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11862304
  45. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1129/WikiLeaks-documents-five-world-leaders-disparaged-by-US-diplomats/Italy-s-Silvio-Berlusconi
  46. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables-berlusconi-putin
  47. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wikileaks-italy-russia/wikileaks-shows-u-s-concern-at-berlusconi-putintie-idUSTRE6B125120101202
  48. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/29/wikileaks-embassy-cables-key-points
  49. https://theweek.com/articles/488953/wikileaks-cablegate-dump-10-biggest-revelations
  50. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/04/wikileaks_cable.html
  51. https://www.datamation.com/security/wikileaks-diplomatic-cable-cache-links-china-to-google-hack/
  52. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/americas/30gitmo.html
  53. https://www.npr.org/2010/11/29/131667077/foreign-policy-wikileaks-reveals-no-big-lies
  54. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/uk/factbox-main-revelations-of-wikileaks-diplomatic-cables-idUSTRE6AT1FQ/
  55. https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Wikileaks-Case-Study.pdf
  56. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/28/editors-note-wikileaks-embassy-cables
  57. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-cables-new-york-times
  58. https://openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/view/146/95
  59. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/for-new-york-times-a-complex-relationship-with-wikileaks-government
  60. https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-06-26/when-wikileaks-and-assange-entered-the-newsroom-a-basement-thousands-of-documents-and-hours-of-research.html
  61. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2011/09/01/140128065/full-cache-of-unredacted-wikileaks-diplomatic-cables-is-now-online
  62. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14743410
  63. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/09/wikileaks-unredacted-cable-release-is-guardians-fault/
  64. https://www.wired.com/2011/09/wikileaks-unredacted-cables/
  65. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-14765837
  66. https://www.govexec.com/defense/2010/12/wikileaks-did-significant-damage-to-diplomacy-state-official-says/32859/
  67. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11833187
  68. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712862490/former-diplomats-reflect-on-impact-of-wikileaks-release-of-diplomatic-cables-in-
  69. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-us-espionage-law
  70. https://www.ifla.org/publications/what-is-the-effect-of-wikileaks-for-freedom-of-information/
  71. https://www.wired.com/2017/05/chelsea-manning-free-leaks-changed/
  72. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712659290/how-much-did-wikileaks-damage-u-s-national-security
  73. https://time.com/archive/6951626/wikileaks-cables-add-to-brits-insecurity-about-u-s-partnership/
  74. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11861964
  75. https://www.voanews.com/a/wikileaks-reaction-in-europe-shows-dismay-not-alarm-110989624/170351.html
  76. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-cables-spy-hunt-germany
  77. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/wikileaks-gulf-arabs-and-iran-opportunity-us-policy
  78. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna40406552
  79. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/asia/05wikileaks-china.html
  80. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/kenya-fumes-over-cable-branding-it-a-swamp-of-corruption-2148013.html
  81. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-kenya-violence-china
  82. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2019/4/18/assange-and-wikileaks-a-view-from-kenya
  83. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-reaction-world-reaction
  84. https://www.securityweek.com/wikileaks-under-denial-service-attack-ddos/
  85. https://techcrunch.com/2010/11/28/wikileaks-ddos-attack/
  86. https://x.com/wikileaks/status/9609091915718656
  87. https://www.theregister.com/2010/11/30/wikileaks_ddos_again/
  88. https://wikileaks.org/Statement-on-DDOS-attacks.html
  89. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/amazon-stops-hosting-wikileaks-website-idUSN01163063/
  90. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon
  91. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-under-attack-definitive-timeline
  92. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-11945875
  93. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2010/12/07/visa-mastercard-move-to-choke-wikileaks/
  94. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-11935539
  95. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/08/anonymous-4chan-wikileaks-mastercard-paypal
  96. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/10wiki.html
  97. https://www.csoonline.com/article/526940/data-protection-wikileaks-never-say-die-355-new-sites.html
  98. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/wikileaks-now-mirrored-at-500-sites-around-globe/67581/
  99. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-backlash-cyber-war
  100. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/world/09wiki.html
  101. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704482704576072081788251562
  102. https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/second-judge-gives-doj-access-to-wikileaks-related-twitter-accounts/
  103. https://www.salon.com/2011/01/08/twitter_2/
  104. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/08/us-twitter-hand-icelandic-wikileaks-messages
  105. https://www.wired.com/2012/01/wikileaks-twitter-bid/
  106. https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-julian-assanges-14-year-long-saga-dodge/story?id=111398254
  107. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50473792
  108. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/sweden-drops-rape-investigation-into-julian-assange
  109. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/17/chelsea-manning-freed-from-prison-timeline
  110. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/chelsea-manning-case-timeline
  111. https://www.justiceinitiative.org/litigation/united-states-v-private-first-class-chelsea-manning
  112. https://abcnews.go.com/US/chelsea-manning-leaked-classified-military-information/story?id=47942490
  113. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/politics/obama-commutes-bulk-of-chelsea-mannings-sentence.html
  114. https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/chelsea-manning-punishment-for-suicide-attempt-is-cruel-and-inhumane/
  115. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/510307055/president-obama-commutes-chelsea-mannings-prison-sentence
  116. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/us/politics/chelsea-manning-wikileaks-jail.html
  117. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chelsea-manning-ordered-released-from-prison-fined-256000-today-2020-03-12/
  118. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/814974205/chelsea-manning-recovering-after-suicide-attempt-in-jail-lawyers-say
  119. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/apr/11/chelsea-manning-julian-assange-webchats-wikileaks
  120. https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/uk/julian-assange-arrested-gbr-intl
  121. https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/uk-julian-assange-extradition-case-concludes
  122. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgggyvp0j9o
  123. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/a-look-at-julian-assange-and-how-the-long-jailed-wikileaks-founder-is-now-on-the-verge-of-freedom/
  124. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/world/europe/wikileaks-julian-assange-russia.html
  125. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/22/mueller-report-confirms-it-assange-is-not-whistleblower-or-journalist/
  126. https://www.reuters.com/article/business/media-telecom/us-officials-privately-say-wikileaks-damage-limited-idUSN18163191/
  127. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/u-s-officials-privately-say-wikileaks-damage-limited-idUSTRE70H6TO/
  128. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11882092
  129. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/just-how-damaging-were-mannings-wikileaks/
  130. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/05/bradley-manning-leak-foreign-policy-sentencing
  131. https://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131686336/ex-diplomats-fear-leak-will-lead-to-cautious-cables
  132. https://opiniojuris.org/2010/12/18/the-effects-of-wikileaks-on-those-who-work-at-the-state-department/
  133. https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2010/12/what-wikileaks-reveals-about-global-diplomacy?lang=en
  134. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2011/jan/19/wikileaks-white-house-state-department
  135. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/11/cablegate-one-year-later-how-wikileaks-has-influenced-foreign-policy-journalism
  136. https://www.theguardian.com/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/217138
  137. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01436597.2013.851901
  138. https://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/6/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_on_role
  139. https://www.reuters.com/article/technology/assange-wikileaks-cables-spurred-arab-uprisings-idUSTRE72E9LO/
  140. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/13/amnesty-international-wikileaks-arab-spring
  141. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/wikileaks-reveal-what-made-tunisians-revolt
  142. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/africa/16cables.html
  143. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/27/the-social-media-myth-about-the-arab-spring
  144. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-muammar-gaddafi-libya
  145. https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks-lybia-moammar-gadhafi-strange-wily/story?id=12971733
  146. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-gadhafi-cables-us-diplomats-struggle-with-an-eccentric-despot-a-732901.html
  147. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy
  148. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11893886
  149. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cable-spain-russian-mafia
  150. https://www.rferl.org/a/wikileaks_russia_organized_crime/2236673.html
  151. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/20/iran-highly-enriched-uranium-wikileaks
  152. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/leaks-amplify-iranian-threats
  153. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MUSCAT565_a.html
  154. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-cables-saudi-meddling-iraq
  155. https://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131699467/is-wikileaks-release-brave-or-unethical
  156. https://www.brandeis.edu/enact/archive/ethical-inquiry/2011/wikileaks.html
  157. https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/The-Death-of-Secrecy.pdf
  158. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/2011/02/truth-and-consequence-the-wikileaks-saga/
  159. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2017/julian-assange-wikileaks-not-heroes/
  160. https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/wikileaks-and-unintended-consequences-freedom-information
  161. https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/leak-at-wikileaks-accidental-release-of-us-cables-endangers-sources-a-783084.html
  162. https://www.timesofisrael.com/wikileaks-eschews-blame-for-iranian-execution-of-mossad-agent/
  163. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/us/30wikileaks.html
  164. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-reportedly-outs-100s-of-afghan-informants/
  165. https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/government-wins-right-pretend-cables-released-wikileaks-are-still-secret
  166. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20869-assange-why-wikileaks-was-right-to-release-raw-cables/
  167. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/07/manning-sentencing-rejects-chilling-effect
  168. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/bradley-manning-trial-verdict-094923
  169. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/48-4_Kwoka.pdf
  170. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/world/07sites.html
  171. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks-on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/
  172. https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/politics/russia-us-election
  173. https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/wikileaks-and-the-classification-follies/
  174. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/manning-and-snowden-wakeup-call-overclassification
  175. https://www.govexec.com/management/2024/07/senators-take-another-crack-solving-over-classification/398413/
  176. https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/LNS/Brennan_Overclassification_Final.pdf
  177. https://news.yahoo.com/news/wikileaks-hearing-stresses-over-classification-more-assange-20101216-050437-978.html
  178. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/108th-congress/senate-report/301/1
  179. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0740624X11000050
  180. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/after-wikileaks-us-tries-to-shield-classified-data-idUSTRE7970UZ/
  181. https://www.darkreading.com/cyber-risk/state-department-cio-what-s-changed-since-wikileaks
  182. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/all-news/2011/10/executive-order-details-post-wikileaks-approach-to-secure-sharing/
  183. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/artificial-intelligence/2023/10/state-department-declassifies-diplomatic-cables-using-ai-assistant/
  184. https://statemag.state.gov/2023/12/1223feat02/
  185. https://freedom.press/issues/how-snowden-has-changed-journalism-and-privacy-five-years-later/
  186. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-28/signal-app-is-surging-in-popularity-and-hitting-growing-pains
  187. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/changing-nature-diplomacy-age-leaks/594226/
  188. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/12/14/Poll-WikiLeaks-harms-public-interest/26851292346624/
  189. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2010/12/08/most-say-wikileaks-release-harms-public-interest/
  190. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/latin-america-after-cablegate-what-changed/
  191. https://2009-2017-fpc.state.gov/152229.htm
  192. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/estimating-the-severity-of-the-wikileaks-us-diplomatic-cables-disclosure/CAC234F8679E9EE23A686DC62DBE7782
  193. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276103411_Estimating_the_Severity_of_the_WikiLeaks_US_Diplomatic_Cables_Disclosure
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.