Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill & Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill & Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.” & Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam 22,16&17JAN14

I e mailed my senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, telling them to oppose S 1881, to give diplomacy a chance to work. I haven't received an answer from Warner (just request for donations to his campaign) but was very happy with Sen Kaine's as he is not a supporter of increasing sanctions on Iran until all diplomatic options are exhausted.
More sanctions on Iran could lead us into another war. The vast majority of the cosponsors of S 1881, especially the democrats, have not served in the US Military, yet they are all to willing to push the war option regarding Iran. Constituents can find out if their senator is a cosponsor of the bill and if they served in the military at http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/sen-tim-kaine-d-va-supports-diplomacy.html and e mail them their thoughts on both.
American and Iranian politicians need to listen to the vast majority of their people. We expect them to give peace a chance. Below are a series of articles from Daily Kos and the Washington Post on S 1881, the threat it poses to peace in the Persian Gulf, the opposition to S 1881 by Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA, Sen Patty Murry D WA, Sen Majority leader Harry Reid D NV, Sen Dick Durbin D IL as well as Sec of State Kerry and Pres Obama. And there is an excellent report on Sen Diane Feinstein's (D CA) opposition to S 1881 and the way she publicly slapped down Israeli PM bibi netanyahu and aipac, the pro-Isreal lobby in the U.S., telling them it is not Israel's place to tell America when and where we will go to war! WELL SAID SEN FEINSTEIN!

Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST

Elizabeth Warren Goes All Foreign Policy on Iran Sanctions Bill

by David Harris Gershon

Elizabeth Warren – an unyielding progressive on economic issues – does not often make headlines in the foreign policy department. However, today she made waves by coming out strongly against the Iran sanctions bill which threatens to derail President Obama's diplomatic progress.
Warren made her position clear in a letter to constituents, which was described by Warren's spokesperson Lacy Rose in the following way:

“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”

Warren broke her silence today along with Senator Patty Murray, who as part of the Senate Democratic leadership proved that a definite rift within the Democratic Party on the sanctions bill exists – a rift which may prevent the bill coming up for a vote. Though as Greg Sargent writes, there is still the possibility of such a vote with 58 senators having come out in favor, and many Democrats still silent on their position.
Which is why Warren and Murray coming out today is so significant, and why pressure on those who remain silent must be maintained.
                                                                --§--

David Harris-Gershon is author of the memoir What Do You Buy the Children of the Terrorist Who Tried to Kill Your Wife?, just out from Oneworld Publications.

Originally posted to David Harris-Gershon (The Troubadour) on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM PST.

Also republished by Writing by David Harris Gershon. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/22/1271714/-Elizabeth-Warren-Goes-All-Foreign-Policy-on-Iran-Sanctions-Bill? 

Another blow to the Iran sanctions bill

 By Greg Sargent

Patty Murray (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Add two more prominent Senators to the list of lawmakers who oppose a vote on an Iran sanctions bill right now: Patty Murray and Elizabeth Warren.
Murray’s opposition — which she declared in a letter to constituents that was sent my way by a source — is significant, because she is a member of the Senate Dem leadership, which is now clearly split on how to proceed. While Chuck Schumer favors the Iran sanctions bill, Murray, Harry Reid and (reportedly) Dick Durbin now oppose it. This could make it less likely that it ever gets a vote.
From Murray’s letter:

Please know that I share your concerns about the Iranian government’s nuclear program. Like you, I am troubled by Iran’s nuclear enrichment program and their desire to enrich nuclear materials above levels required for energy production. That is why I was pleased to see Iran take measurable steps toward addressing the international community’s concerns by signing the Joint Plan of Action last fall…While I still remain concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, I believe this agreement could be an important step in our efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to this complicated issue.
I believe the Administration should be given time to negotiate a strong verifiable comprehensive agreement. However, if Iran does not agree to a comprehensive agreement that is acceptable, or if Iran does not abide by the terms of the interim agreement, I will work with my colleagues to swiftly enact sanctions in order to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.

This hits some of the key points: The mere possibility of a long term deal is worth trying for, and sanctions can always be imposed later if the talks go awry.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren is circulating a letter to constituents out there that also opposes a vote. Asked about the letter, Warren spokesperson Lacey Rose emails me:

“Senator Warren believes we must exhaust every effort to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy, and she does not support imposing additional sanctions through new legislation while diplomatic efforts to achieve a long-term agreement are ongoing.”

Warren’s pull with the Democratic base, of course, is largely rooted in her emphasis on economic issues, but there has been some chatter in liberal circles inquiring about her stance on Iran. Since a mobilized left is important in preventing a vote that could derail diplomacy, her opposition can only help.
The method by which both Senators declared their positions — letters to constituents, in response to questions perhaps stoked by pressure from outside groups — says something about the caution Dems are demonstrating when it comes to the domestic politics of engagement with Iran. Those who favored a vote were far more vocal at first — as of now, 16 Dem Senators have signed on. But the continued silence of many Dem Senators signaled a broad unwillingness to join the bill, even as many were unwilling to publicly declare this to be the case, since Dems apparently see allowing negotiations to proceed, without getting a chance to vote in favor of getting tougher on Iran, as a politically difficult position to take.
If current conditions remain, a vote is starting to look less and less likely. Right now, the bill has 58 co-sponsors. On the other side, 10 Dem Senate committee chairs have signed a letter opposing a vote. Around half a dozen Dem Senators subsequently came out against it. With Murray and Warren, the number of Dems against a vote has comfortably surpassed the number who want one.
Meanwhile, announcements like the one earlier this month indicating that the deal with Iran is moving forward make a vote still less likely. With Murray now opposed, that means virtually the whole Dem leadership is a No. On the other hand, those who adamantly want a vote — insisting it would only help the White House and make success more likely, despite what the White House itself wants – will be looking for any hook they can find to reactivate pressure.
And it’s worth stressing that if this ever did come to a vote, it’s quite possible that many of the Dems still remaining silent could still vote Yes. Those Democrats would be putting themselves in a ridiculous, untenable position if they did that, but since many appear convinced that the alternative is politically worse, it remains a very real possibility.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/22/another-blow-to-the-iran-sanctions-bill/?wp_login_redirect=0

Sen. Feinstein: "We cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war.”

by TomPFollow

I have been heartened by the recent pushback against the AIPAC scheme to destroy negotiations with Iran, i.e., the current sanctions bill, and to turn the war power of the United States Constitution effectively over to Israel's prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu.
President Obama's spokeperson recently laid it on the line by saying that if members of Congress want a war, they should say so:

According to National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan, “If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so. Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed.” The White House said the bill “would divide the international community, drive the Iranians to take a harder line, and possibly end negotiations.”

New Sanctions on Iran Could Torpedo Negotiations Senator Feinstein followed this up by openly rejected the attempt to turn the war power of the US Constitution over to Israel's current prime minister:

Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Intelligence Committee, called the sanctions bill "a march towards war" on Tuesday in a floor speech that was remarkable in detail and force. “I deeply believe that a vote for this legislation will cause negotiations to collapse,” Feinstein said, after thoroughly rebutting many of the claims about the interim deal put forth by the bill’s supporters. “The United States, not Iran, then becomes the party that risks fracturing the international coalition that has enabled our sanctions to succeed in the first place.” snip
Dianne Feinstein addressed this point more directly than perhaps any other politician so far. “While I recognize and share Israel’s concern, we cannot let Israel determine when and where the US goes to war,” she said. “By stating that the US should provide military support to Israel should it attack Iran, I fear that is exactly what this bill will do.”

The Nation: Push for New Sanctions on Iran Stalls Amid Growing Resistance Through the toughness of the President and the patriotism of a few, including Senator Feinstein, who often is much more hawkish, I think we have averted the attempt to bring this nation to war by the current Israeli government and its lobbyists in the United States.
10 committee chairs in the senate oppose this bill and it looks as if Reid is not going to bring it to a vote.
Such a bill never should have been this close to passing.  Our Congress has a big problem.  Nonetheless, people like Senator Feinstein, who I believe is a strong supporter of Israel, stood up against this.  On foreign policy and civil liberties, we often disagree.  But she has my thanks for helping to avert war and allow negotiations to proceed.  Senator Reid, President Obama and Secretary Kerry also deserve much credit.

Originally posted to TomP on Thu Jan 16, 2014 at 09:22 AM PST.

Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East and California politics. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/16/1270111/-Sen-Feinstein-We-cannot-let-Israel-determine-when-and-where-the-US-goes-to-war 

Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST

Congressional move to add more sanctions on Iran has run out of steam

by Meteor Blades

Uranium-concentrating centrifuges at Natanz, Iran.

A week ago, it appeared that a bill to tighten the screws on Iran over its nuclear program was headed for certain success in the Senate. Initiated by Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, S. 1881—the Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act—would not only have imposed new economic sanctions, it would also have committed the United States to use military force in support of Israel if that nation attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran retaliated. By last Wednesday, Menendez had 58 co-sponsors, including 15 Democrats. Talk centered on whether an additional eight could be gathered to make the bill veto-proof.
But as Steve Benen at the Rachel Maddow blog notes today, there's been a turnaround:

Just [in] the last few days, however, the odds of such a bill even reaching the president’s desk have dropped unexpectedly. The Hill, for example, reported yesterday that House Republicans “are moving away from a proposal to adopt new Iran sanctions.” House Democrats who were otherwise sympathetic to the idea became “irked” by GOP political tactics “and the idea appears to have been at least temporarily shelved.”

Meanwhile, in the Senate, the effort to get 67 co-sponsors on board has stalled, with no new names being added since last week. And while U.S. support for new sanctions has fallen off, at least for the moment, the European Union will begin relaxing some of its sanctions next week if inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran is complying with the restrictions agreed to by negotiators in Geneva in November. Good news all around.
The switch in the United States can be chalked up in part to White House pressure, the 10 Senate committee chairpersons who wrote a letter opposing more sanctions and surprises like hawk Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) saying new sanctions would "blow up" the negotiations for a long-term international agreement with Iran limiting its nuclear program. The other source of opposition, Benen says a Senate staffer told him, is that "public pressure has also increased, with more voters contacting the Hill with phone calls and emails, voicing opposition to the bill."
Please join us in keeping up that public pressure by opposing the Menendez sanctions bill.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 17, 2014 at 10:37 AM PST.

Also republished by Adalah — A Just Middle East, More and Better Democracies, and Daily Kos. 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/17/1270433/-Congressional-move-to-add-more-sanctions-on-Iran-has-run-out-of-steam 

WikiLeaks Docs Released: US Urged Spying on UN, Arab Leaders Secretly Called for Strike Against Iran 28NOV10

MORE on the Wikileaks leaks, and just how pathetic governments and diplomats are, how junior high school they can be, and how dangerously evil they can be too......Again, I think this is a good thing......

U.S. embassy cables leak sparks global diplomacy crisis for the U.S.

November 28, 2010  |  

The United States was catapulted into a worldwide diplomatic crisis today, with the leaking to the Guardian and other international media of more than 250,000 classified cables from its embassies, many sent as recently as February this year.
At the start of a series of daily extracts from the US embassy cables - many of which are designated "secret" – the Guardian can disclose that Arab leaders are privately urging an air strike on Iran and that US officials have been instructed to spy on the UN's leadership.
These two revelations alone would be likely to reverberate around the world. But the secret dispatches which were obtained by WikiLeaks, the whistlebowers' website, also reveal Washington's evaluation of many other highly sensitive international issues.
These include a major shift in relations between China and North Korea, Pakistan's growing instability and details of clandestine US efforts to combat al-Qaida in Yemen.
Among scores of other disclosures that are likely to cause uproar, the cables detail:
• Grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme
• Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime.
• Devastating criticism of the UK's military operations in Afghanistan.
• Claims of inappropriate behaviour by a member of the British royal family.
The US has particularly intimate dealings with Britain, and some of the dispatches from the London embassy in Grosvenor Square will make uncomfortable reading in Whitehall and Westminster. They range from serious political criticisms of David Cameron to requests for specific intelligence about individual MPs.
The cache of cables contains specific allegations of corruption and against foreign leaders, as well as harsh criticism by US embassy staff of their host governments, from tiny islands in the Caribbean to China and Russia.
The material includes a reference to Vladimir Putin as an "alpha-dog", Hamid Karzai as being "driven by paranoia" and Angela Merkel allegedly "avoids risk and is rarely creative". There is also a comparison between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.
The cables name countries involved in financing terror groups, and describe a near "environmental disaster" last year over a rogue shipment of enriched uranium. They disclose technical details of secret US-Russian nuclear missile negotiations in Geneva, and include a profile of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who they say is accompanied everywhere by a "voluptuous blonde" Ukrainian nurse.
The cables cover secretary of state Hillary Clinton's activities under the Obama administration, as well as thousands of files from the George Bush presidency. Clinton personally led frantic damage limitation this weekend as Washington prepared foreign governments for the revelations. She contacted leaders in Germany, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf, France and Afghanistan.
US ambassadors in other capitals were instructed to brief their hosts in advance of the release of unflattering pen-portraits or nakedly frank accounts of transactions with the US which they had thought would be kept quiet. Washington now faces a difficult task in convincing contacts around the world that any future conversations will remain confidential.
"We are all bracing for what may be coming and condemn WikiLeaks for the release of classified material," state department spokesman PJ Crowley said. "It will place lives and interests at risk. It is irresponsible."
The state department's legal adviser has written to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and his London lawyer, warning that the cables were obtained illegally and that publication would place at risk "the lives of countless innocent individuals … ongoing military operations … and cooperation between countries".
The electronic archive of embassy dispatches from around the world was allegedly downloaded by a US soldier earlier this year and passed to WikiLeaks. Assange made them available to the Guardian and four other newspapers: the New York Times, Der Spiegel in Germany, Le Monde in France and El País in Spain. All five plan to publish extracts from the most significant cables, but have decided neither to "dump" the entire dataset into the public domain, nor to publish names that would endanger innocent individuals. WikiLeaks says that, contrary to the state department's fears, it also initially intends to post only limited cable extracts, and to redact identities.
The cables published today reveal how the US uses its embassies as part of a global espionage network, with diplomats tasked to obtain not just information from the people they meet, but personal details, such as frequent flyer numbers, credit card details and even DNA material.
Classified "human intelligence directives" issued in the name of Hillary Clinton or her predecessor, Condoleeza Rice, instruct officials to gather information on military installations, weapons markings, vehicle details of political leaders as well as iris scans, fingerprints and DNA.
The most controversial target was the leadership of the United Nations. That directive requested the specification of telecoms and IT systems used by top UN officials and their staff and details of "private VIP networks used for official communication, to include upgrades, security measures, passwords, personal encryption keys".
When the Guardian put this allegation to Crowley, the state department spokesman said: "Let me assure you: our diplomats are just that, diplomats. They do not engage in intelligence activities. They represent our country around the world, maintain open and transparent contact with other governments as well as public and private figures, and report home. That's what diplomats have done for hundreds of years."
The dispatches also shed light on older diplomatic issues. One cable, for example, reveals, that Nelson Mandela was "furious" when a top adviser stopped him meeting Margaret Thatcher shortly after his release from prison to explain why the ANC objected to her policy of "constructive engagement" with the apartheid regime. "We understand Mandela was keen for a Thatcher meeting but that [appointments secretary Zwelakhe] Sisulu argued successfully against it," according to the cable. It continues: "Mandela has on several occasions expressed his eagerness for an early meeting with Thatcher to express the ANC's objections to her policy. We were consequently surprised when the meeting didn't materialise on his mid-April visit to London and suspected that ANC hardliners had nixed Mandela's plans."
The US embassy cables are marked "Sipdis" – secret internet protocol distribution. They were compiled as part of a programme under which selected dispatches, considered moderately secret but suitable for sharing with other agencies, would be automatically loaded on to secure embassy websites, and linked with the military's Siprnet internet system.
They are classified at various levels up to "SECRET NOFORN" [no foreigners]. More than 11,000 are marked secret, while around 9,000 of the cables are marked noforn. The embassies which sent most cables were Ankara, Baghdad, Amman, Kuwait and Tokyo.
More than 3 million US government personnel and soldiers, many extremely junior, are cleared to have potential access to this material, even though the cables contain the identities of foreign informants, often sensitive contacts in dictatorial regimes. Some are marked "protect" or "strictly protect".
Last spring, 22-year-old intelligence analyst Bradley Manning was charged with leaking many of these cables, along with a gun-camera video of an Apache helicopter crew mistakenly killing two Reuters news agency employees in Baghdad in 2007, which was subsequently posted by WikiLeaks. Manning is facing a court martial.
In July and October WikiLeaks also published thousands of leaked military reports from Afghanistan and Iraq. These were made available for analysis beforehand to the Guardian, along with Der Spiegel and the New York Times.
A former hacker, Adrian Lamo, who reported Manning to the US authorities, said the soldier had told him in chat messages that the cables revealed "how the first world exploits the third, in detail".
He also said, according to Lamo, that Clinton "and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available in searchable format to the public … everywhere there's a US post … there's a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed".
Asked why such sensitive material was posted on a network accessible to thousands of government employees, the state department spokesman told the Guardian: "The 9/11 attacks and their aftermath revealed gaps in intra-governmental information sharing. Since the attacks of 9/11, the US government has taken significant steps to facilitate information sharing. These efforts were focused on giving diplomatic, military, law enforcement and intelligence specialists quicker and easier access to more data to more effectively do their jobs."
He added: "We have been taking aggressive action in recent weeks and months to enhance the security of our systems and to prevent the leak of information."

WikiLeaks Release Reveals Ugly Side Of Diplomacy & WikiLeaks Releases Cache Of U.S. Diplomatic Cables 28NOV10

MAYBE if the government was honest in their dealings with our allies and our enemies there would be less tension. AND maybe if people in the diplomatic corps weren't so juvenile Sec Clinton and others at the State Dept wouldn't be scrambling doing damage control. All in all I think this is a good thing, after all, the secrecy of the past decade hasn't created a safer world, especially in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf regions, and it hasn't protected us or our allies from terrorism attacks. We are tangled up in failed policies and bad alliances mostly to protect the profit margins of the U.S. military industrial complex. Let's see what a bit of transparency will do.....maybe it will level the playing field a bit, maybe bring a bit of much needed attention to world players who are not doing their share for the benefit of mankind and maybe expose those who are doing more harm than good but have been protected by the secrecy of ill-advised alliances....I think Wikileaks is doing us all a favor.....
WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing secret documents, has made good on its promise to release a huge cache of confidential American diplomatic cables. The documents dump, which includes a huge sampling of the daily traffic between the U.S. State Department and some 270 embassies and consulates, pulls back the curtain on the sometimes messy business of diplomacy.
"By its very nature, field reporting to Washington is candid and often incomplete information," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement Sunday. "It is not an expression of policy, nor does it always shape final policy decisions. Nevertheless, these cables could compromise private discussions ... and when the substance of private conversations is printed on the front pages of newspapers across the world, it can deeply impact not only U.S. foreign policy interests, but those of our allies and friends around the world."
WikiLeaks, in addition to making the cables available online, used an intermediary to provide them early to The New York Times, the German magazine Der Spigel and Britain's Guardian newspaper weeks ago for release Sunday. The WikiLeaks website appears to have been intermittently shut down Sunday.
A Generation Of American Diplomacy
Taken together, the quarter-million documents released Sunday span more than a generation of American diplomacy. Dating as far back as 1966 to the latest cable written as recently as this past February, the documents outline, among other things, a standoff over nuclear fuel transfers between the U.S. and Pakistan in 2007; a scenario for a reunited Korea should the North Korean government fall; and round-the-clock efforts on the part of the Obama administration to rein in Iran's nuclear program and Iran's effort to dominate the Middle East — all issues on the front burner of U.S. foreign policy today.
On the subject of Iran, the cables track Washington's view of Iran's three-pronged strategy to emerge as the most powerful force in the Middle East. Diplomats assume that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability and missile systems; that it wants regional hegemony across the Middle East; and that the leadership there represented a growing danger to Israel.
The cables also make clear that without an embassy in Tehran and very limited American presence inside the country, the U.S. has a dearth of first-hand intelligence of what is going on there, the news organizations who saw the cables reported.
According to one cable, William Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state, finds a sympathetic hearing about Iran in a less expected quarter when he visits Baku, the capital of one of Iran's closest neighbors, Azerbaijan, in February 2010.
According to a confidential account of a meeting with President Ilham Aliyev, the Azerbaijan president tells Burns "that although the visible side of Azerbaijan's relations with Iran appears normal", the substance was very different. "I do not exclude that relations will be become more difficult," he added. Aliyev tells Burns that Tehran was "financing radical Islamic groups and Hezbollah terrorists." Aliyev also said, according to the cable, that the situation was "very tense within Iran and believed it could erupt at any time."
Recent Cables
The cables also detail recent meetings with the Yemeni president after U.S. strikes in his country against alleged terrorists. President Ali Abdullah Saleh says that he will tell the Yemeni parliament that the bombs that fell were Yemeni, not American ones. He jokes about smuggling in his country and says that he's concerned about drugs and weapons, but doesn't object to "good whiskey" being smuggled in. He's the ruler of a conservative Muslim country.
The released cables also talk about Afghan President Hamid Karzai's half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai. American officials met with him in late 2009 and early 2010. U.S. diplomats made clear in their cables that they don't trust him. In the middle of a cable back to Washington, they put in the following: "Note: While we must deal with AWK as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker."
Another cable reads: Mr. Karzai "demonstrated that he will dissemble when it suits his needs." It says he clearly did not appear to "understand the level of our knowledge of his activities. We will need to monitor his activity closely, and deliver a recurring, transparent message to him about the limits of American tolerance."
The concern is if he didn't know the level of American surveillance before, he knows it now — thanks to the release of these dispatches.
Unflattering Comments
Even the less sensitive areas outlined in the cables will have the State Department scrambling to make amends to leaders who were never supposed to hear the unvarnished comments passed between American diplomats.
The German chancellor is referred to as Angela "Teflon" Merkel. Karzai is said to be "driven by paranoia." North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is said to suffer from epilepsy. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's full-time nurse is called a "hot blond." That's part of the reason why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and top State Department officials around the world have been on the phones calling foreign leaders to prepare them for the disclosures.
On Sunday, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman condemned the "reckless disclosure" of the documents. In a statement, he outlined steps the Defense Department has taken to prevent further leaks, including changing the way classified material is moved to unclassified systems.
Just how WikiLeaks got these cables and two other caches of secret U.S. documents is still a matter of debate. The belief is that an Army intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning may have been behind the leak. He allegedly told a computer hacker named Adrian Lamo that he had downloaded the documents and delivered them to WikiLeaks. Lamo reported Manning to federal authorities, and Manning has been charged with illegally leaking classified information. He faces a possible court-martial and, if convicted, a lengthy prison term.

WikiLeaks Documents Sent Via Siprnet

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131651476

WikiLeaks Releases Cache Of U.S. Diplomatic Cables

 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131651472

Cables

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

[6 min 27 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download

 

It's Chapter 3 of the WikiLeaks saga: The whistle-blower website released a quarter-million confidential U.S. diplomatic cables on Sunday. The dispatches cover a range of topics, from the serious — Arab leaders urging the U.S. to bomb Iran; to the silly — Libyan leader Muammar Gaddhafi's penchant for horse racing. NPR diplomatic correspondent Michele Kelemen has been reading the cables, and she fills in guest host Audie Cornish about the highlights.