1) Bill Cooper on 911 youtube
2) South Park Margaretiville (suggested viewing in the following videos)
3) The article following this series of videos is of the killings of the man in the videos.
JKCH-4 Part 1 of 7
JKCH-4 Part 2 of 7
JKCH-4 Part 3 of 7
JKCH-4 Part 4 of 7
JKCH-4 Part 5 of 7
JKCH-4 Part 6 of 7
JKCH-4 Part 7 of 7
Wildlife officer honored for role in ending W. Memphis police shootout
Posted on 17 June 2010
Wildlife Officer Michael K. Neal (center) speaks with West Memphis police detective Jimmy Evans (right) and West Memphis Mayor Bill Johnson after Neal was honored Thursday for his actions in stopping a West Memphis police shootout that left two officers dead and two others wounded. Evans is a brother of one of the slain officers. (Arkansas Game and Fish/Mike Wintroath photo)
By Joe Mosby
Arkansas News Correspondent
LITTLE ROCK — Wildlife Officer Michael K. Neal, credited by West Memphis police with stopping a shootout with suspects in the deaths of two of their fellow officers, was honored today before the state Game and Fish Commission.
4) Confessions of an Economic Hit Man youtube
5) 17 Little Children Karl Lang youtube
6) Brad Will Solidarity Song youtube
7) Alex Jones - Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed 1/2
b) Alex Jones - Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed 2/2
8) Rachel Corrie 5th Grade Speech I'm here because I care youtube
9) The Meatrix videos
The Meatrix
EXCERPT:
The Meatrix is an Adobe Flash short animation criticizing the methods of industrial agriculture and factory farming,[1] watched by more than 15 million people[citation needed]. It was made by the green messaging firm Free Range Studios in 2003 as a commissioned project for GRACE, and two sequels were released in 2006.[2]
In a dark satire of The Matrix, Leo, a pig on a seemingly bucolic family farm, is approached by Moopheus, an anthropomorphic bull. Moopheus shows Leo that the farm he has known is an illusion, and that he is really trapped in a horrific factory farm. Leo and Moopheus then work to break out of the Meatrix and help others do the same, with some help from a third character, Chickity.[3][4] The animated short aims to encourage consumers to purchase organic food products and free-range meats. [5][6][7]
10) DC Rumors Fly as US Senate Heads Toward Recess
Here is a summary of some of today’s developing news:
[1] Gov Track Posting on S.510 – the fake “food safety” bill: “This bill was considered in committee which has recommended it be considered by the Senate as a whole. Although it has been placed on a calendar of business, the order in which legislation is considered and voted on is determined by the majority party leadership. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Sep 22, 2010 6:15AM]” – http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-510
[2] From Campaign for Liberty: “These next 48 hours are potentially the most dangerous time of the year, as Harry Reid and his statist allies in Washington, D.C. decide whether to head home for the election or try to sneak in a last minute vote to steal liberty, spend money, or empower big labor and other statist allies…”
[3] This from the All 247 News site: “…Tuesday, 9/28 the Senate Democrats overcame a potential Republican fillbuster and closed debate on the legislative vehicle called a continuing resolution (or “CR”) by a vote to of 84 to 14. Final passage of the bill is expected to occur as early as Wednesday afternoon. Current plans as announced by the Senate leadership call for the Senate to adjourn immediately after the vote, and not return till about November 15 after the mid term elections. Earlier this week there were come predictions that the Senate would deal with unemployement extension and a potential Tier V but it is now virtually certain that this will not occur…”
11) Codex Alimentarius
EXCERPT:
You're probably aware that as of 2009, natural cures, supplements, herbs and vitamins will be prohibited in the EU. As of 2010, EU members won't have the freedom to choose high quality food or natural cures. In Canada, a law with similar content is proposed and the US will follow shortly.
Here you'll find more information and videos about the driving force behind it, the food chemical Codex (Alimentarius)
12) Dana had shared with his brother that he was working on revealing that he had found evidence of a buriel ground for US soldiers...... Did they die from vacanations, was it a major cover-up?
Mazen Dana
Mazen Dana, 17th Journalist Killed in Iraq
“For Mazan Dana”- 19th journalist killed in Iraq.. Dana was a Palestinian journalist who worked for Rueters.
He was filming when he was killed by US forces outside Abu Graib Prison.
In the installation, Dana’s camera is an LCD screen that loops the video footage that he was filming when shot to death. Donations for Dana’s family were collected with the exhibit.
13) Highway of Death
EXCERPT:
The Highway of Death refers to a six-lane highway between Kuwait and Iraq, officially known as Highway 80. It runs from Kuwait City to the border towns of Abdali and Safwan and then on to Basra.
During the United Nations coalition offensive in the Gulf War, retreating Iraqi military personnel were attacked on Highway 80 by American aircraft and ground forces on the night of February 26–27, 1991, resulting in the destruction of hundreds of vehicles and many of their occupants. The scenes of devastation on the road are some of the most recognisable images of the war, and was publicly cited as a factor in President George H. W. Bush's decision to declare a cessation of hostilities on the next day.[1] Many Iraqi forces however succeeded in escaping across the Euphrates river and the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated that upwards of 70,000 to 80,000 troops from defeated divisions in Kuwait may have fled into the city of Basra.[2]
14) The highway of death
EXCERPT:
February 28, 1991—President George Bush Sr. announces a halt to "Operation Desert Storm"—one day after U.S. aircraft carry out a massive bombing of a retreating Iraqi convoy in what became known as the "Highway of Death."
March 18, 2003—the U.S. proclaims a "coalition of the willing" of 30 nations in support of war—while the following day, March 19, President George Bush Jr. announces the start of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Both dates, February 28, 1991 and March 18, 2003, coincided with the holiday of Purim, a day on which Jews celebrate events related in the Book of Esther—and there are some fundamentalist Jews today who read this peculiar convergence as no coincidence.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Karenna Gore Schiff
EXCERPT:
On July 12, 1997 she married Andrew Newman Schiff,[1] a doctor, in Washington D.C.[5][6] Andrew is a descendant of Jacob Schiff. They have three children together: Wyatt Gore Schiff, (born July 4, 1999 in New York City)[7] Anna Hunger Schiff, (born August 23, 2001 in New York City)[8] and Oscar Aitcheson Schiff (born in 2006).[9][10] They currently live in New York City. As of June 9, 2010, she and husband Andrew are separated.[11]
Jacob Schiff and the Rothschilds
EXCERPT:
Jacob Schiff grew up in the house that the Rothschild's had at 148 Judengasse, Frankfurt. Jacob Schiff came to the United States with Rothschild capital and took over control of a small jewish banking concern founded by two Cincinnati dry goods merchants Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. He even married Soloman's daughter. In 1885, Loeb retired, and Schiff ran the Kuhn, Loeb Co. for the Rothschilds until 1920 when he died.17 During Russell's and Brigham Young's day, Lord Rothschild was considered the "lay leader of world Jewry."18
THE SATANIC BLOODLINES
Introduction
1.1. The Astor Bloodline
2.2. The Bundy Bloodline
3.3. The Collins Bloodline
4.4. The DuPont Bloodline
5.5. The Freeman Bloodline
6.6. The Kennedy Bloodline
7.7. The Li Bloodline
8.8. The Onassis Bloodline
9.9. The Reynolds bloodline
110. The Rockefeller Bloodline
11. The Rothschild Bloodline
12. The Russell Bloodline
13. The Van Duyn Bloodline
Climate change this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
BBC weatherman was sent climate change emails
Leaked climate change emails 'won't bias UN global warning body' says chairman Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.
EXCERPT:
On July 12, 1997 she married Andrew Newman Schiff,[1] a doctor, in Washington D.C.[5][6] Andrew is a descendant of Jacob Schiff. They have three children together: Wyatt Gore Schiff, (born July 4, 1999 in New York City)[7] Anna Hunger Schiff, (born August 23, 2001 in New York City)[8] and Oscar Aitcheson Schiff (born in 2006).[9][10] They currently live in New York City. As of June 9, 2010, she and husband Andrew are separated.[11]
Jacob Schiff and the Rothschilds
EXCERPT:
Jacob Schiff grew up in the house that the Rothschild's had at 148 Judengasse, Frankfurt. Jacob Schiff came to the United States with Rothschild capital and took over control of a small jewish banking concern founded by two Cincinnati dry goods merchants Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. He even married Soloman's daughter. In 1885, Loeb retired, and Schiff ran the Kuhn, Loeb Co. for the Rothschilds until 1920 when he died.17 During Russell's and Brigham Young's day, Lord Rothschild was considered the "lay leader of world Jewry."18
THE SATANIC BLOODLINES
Introduction
1.1. The Astor Bloodline
2.2. The Bundy Bloodline
3.3. The Collins Bloodline
4.4. The DuPont Bloodline
5.5. The Freeman Bloodline
6.6. The Kennedy Bloodline
7.7. The Li Bloodline
8.8. The Onassis Bloodline
9.9. The Reynolds bloodline
110. The Rockefeller Bloodline
11. The Rothschild Bloodline
12. The Russell Bloodline
13. The Van Duyn Bloodline
Climate change this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
Published: 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009
CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
BBC weatherman was sent climate change emails
Leaked climate change emails 'won't bias UN global warning body' says chairman Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.
The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.
There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.
They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.
But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.
In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.
What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.
Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.
The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
WikiLeaks wikipedia
EXCERPT:
The organization has described itself as having been founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[1] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010) describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director.[4]
WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award.[5] In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International's UK Media Award (in the category "New Media") for the 2008 publication of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances",[6] a report by the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[7] In May 2010, the New York Daily News listed WikiLeaks first in a ranking of "websites that could totally change the news".[8]
In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from an incident in which Iraqi civilians were alleged to have been killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review.[9]
Julian Assange targeted
EXCERPT:
Assange: Pentagon could be behind rape claim
Published: 22 Aug 10 13:21 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
Updated: 22 Aug 10 14:35 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/28514/20100822/
Share28 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has speculated that the Pentagon could be behind a rape accusation that prompted Swedish prosecutors to issue a warrant for his arrest which was later withdrawn.
•Sweden Democrat 'members' site shut down (24 Sep 10)
•Assange free to leave Sweden: lawyer (19 Sep 10)
•Assange: 'I'm the only victim' in rape scandal (8 Sep 10)
The country's prosecution service meanwhile justified the chaotic situation when authorities first issued an arrest warrant for the Australian whistleblower late on Friday night but then withdrew it the following day.
The Aftonbladet newspaper quoted Assange, 39, as saying he did not know who was "hiding behind" the claims, which came amid a stand-off with Washington over the website's publication of secret Afghan war documents.
Assange said he was shocked by the allegations against him and that he had never had sexual relations with anybody in a way that was not consensual, the tabloid said.
But he said that he had been warned previously that groups such as the Pentagon "could use dirty tricks" to destroy Wikileaks -- adding that he had been particularly warned against being entrapped by sexual scandals.
Maybe The Meatrix should have another video relating to Genetically Engineered Marijuana....
The Meatrix video
Genetically modified marjiuana
EXCERPT:
Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto’s best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year’s crop.
Cannibis culture
EXCERPT:
Monsanto's marijuana
The US-based Monsanto corporation became infamous last year when the public discovered that the huge pharmaceutical company was responsible for producing Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, for producing and selling Roundup to be sprayed on South American villages, for experimenting with dangerous genetically modified foods, and ? most recently ? for creating the dreaded "terminator" seed.
Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to produce a plant that will not produce viable seed, meaning that growers would be forced to go back to Monsanto each year to buy more seed stock to replant. Governments and public alike became wary of the concept when it was discovered that the terminator seed could possibly cross the species barrier, possibly spreading infertility among the plant kingdom like a disease.
Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.
Pharmaceutical schwag
Interestingly, low-potency pot of the kind produced by Monsanto seeds at the University of Mississippi is exactly the kind of product the Ministry of Health is asking for from contractors. The guidelines ask specifically for "standardized marijuana cigarettes with THC content of between 4% and 6% and weighing [about] 850 mg."
Which means the cigarettes to be used for clinical trials will be phatties containing over three-quarters of a gram of schwag bud each! These fat joints will deliver about twice the tar per dose as marijuana currently available from experienced growers, which reaches between 8-10% THC.
The Health Canada document seems concerned that smoking can cause harm, and promises to explore other methods soon after the initial trials are run. Yet the product they choose to use is guaranteed to maximize the risks and problems associated with smoking. Could it be that the Ministry of Health is creating its own excuse not to use smoking as a delivery method?
Our anonymous source within the ministry assures us that the government plans to eventually only allow the use of inhalers, similar to asthma inhalers.
"The inhaler gets rid of any small industry that might develop, by regulating the delivery system. The other idea that didn't go through was to develop a seed system that would allow cultivars from across Canada which would then be grandfathered. What this means is that once the cultivated varieties were tested they would be introduced just the same as if they had been genetically modified."
Patented seeds and dose delivery methods could mean complete pharmaceutical control of medicinal cannabis sometime in the near future.
Ford's hemp car
Marijuana entrepreneur tries to trademark the word Ganja with copyright office scriptd
Proposition 19 Monsanto Terminator cannabis
EXCERPT:
PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND TERMINATOR CANNABIS
radicaljusticeman | September 9, 2010 - 2 days 15 hours in
* Guerrilla Radio
* Proposition 19 Drug Policy Alliance MPP NORML George Soros Monsanto Bayer GW Pharma HortaPharm GMO Terminator Cannabis
PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND TERMINATOR CANNABIS
An article by D.M. Murdock written in August 2010 and entitled “Why hemp could save the world” states:
“Hemps prohibition has led to untold suffering around the globe. If we—the global human population—had been able to grow the miracle plant hemp (Cannabis genus) locally and to use it for local industries and businesses, including and especially for fuel, we would never have needed to be addicted to oil, for one, an addiction that is at the root of much misery. We would never have allowed ourselves to be lorded over by international oil-mongers whose crimes against humanity have become legion, including wholesale invasion of other lands and slaughter of countless people.”
“None of this oil-related horror—along with the deplorable degradation of the environment globally—would have occurred if hemp had not been prohibited but had been used wisely and intelligently as a major foundation of human society. Indeed, hemp-based economies could still save the human world, while hemp planting could go a massively long way in rescuing the natural world as well.”
“It is said that hemp has up to 50,000 uses, from fiber to fuel to food, but I'll just provide a taste here:”
Free gifts
EXCERPT:
Cracking Down on Pharma Swag
Several medical centers are barring their doctors from accepting freebies like pens and lunches from any vendor. Here's why
As the medical industry is reassessing how physicians should disclose the shares of stock and other compensation they receive from health-care companies, another ethical question has sparked a wave of hand-wringing at academic medical centers across the U.S. Can a gift as seemingly worthless as a pen or a slice of pizza influence how doctors do their jobs? So far, the consensus answer seems to be yes.
WikiLeaks vs The Pentagon
U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks release: March 15, 2010
keywords: WikiLeaks, U.S. intelligence, U.S. Army, National Ground Intelligence Center, NGIC, classified, SECRET,
NOFORN
restraint: Classified SECRET/NOFORN (US)
title: Wikileaks.org - An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?
date: March 18, 2008
group: United States Army Counterintelligence Center, Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch; Department
of Defence Intelligence Analysis Program
author: Michael D. Horvath
link: http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
pages: 32
Description
By Julian Assange (julian@wikileaks.org)
This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.
“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing
sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize
the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the
insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends “The identification, exposure, termination of employment,
criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage
or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site”.
[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan
was ineffective]. As an odd justificaton for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China,
Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website”.
The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment
expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the
Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of
inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of
intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks.
wikileaks.org
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 1 of 32
ACIC Home
(U) Wikileaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign
Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?
NGIC-2381-0617-08
Information Cutoff Date: 28 February 2008
Publication Date: 18 March 2008
National Security Information
Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions
Derived from: Multiple sources
Declassify on: Source documents marked 25X1
Date of source: 20060725
This Counterintelligence Analysis Report is published under the auspices of the Department of
Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP).
Prepared by:
Michael D. Horvath
Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch
Army Counterintelligence Center
External Coordination: National Ground Intelligence Center[1]
This product responds to HQ, Department of Army, production requirement C764-97-0005.
ACIC Product Identification Number is RB08-0617.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Purpose
(U) This special report assesses the counterintelligence threat posed to the US Army by the
Wikileaks.org Web site.
[Back to Table of Contents]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 2 of 32
(U) Executive Summary
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force
protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security
(INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US
Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to
DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified
DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by
a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or
organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet. Such information could be of
value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign
insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against
US force, both within the United States and abroad.
(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US
government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot
be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ―leakers‖ or ―whistleblowers‖ of sensitive or
classified DoD documents are former US government employees. These claims are highly
suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or
whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and
providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory
information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect
the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information. On the other hand, one
cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be
inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with
limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.
(U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal
behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, the
former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the
Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or
whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other
information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations. The
developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign
government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic,
oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2]
(S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial
review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons
accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information
posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org
Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,
and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to
convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 3 of 32
(U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government
and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other
countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of
information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and
open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs
any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business
information. Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face
legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified
government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false,
slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature. For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the
United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing
of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax
evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against
Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site
was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and
organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows
the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front
organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4]
(S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and
several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have
the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted
they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious
content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to
remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting
of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these
countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and
whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the
Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of
employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers
could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make
such information public.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Key Judgments
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence,
OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.
(S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide
FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially
actionable information for targeting US forces.
(S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the
US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 4 of 32
be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees
leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since
Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its
primary goals.
(U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,
misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception
management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to
specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.
(U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and
claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers
or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information,
propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information
in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.
(U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting
the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification,
exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current
or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this
center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the
Wikileaks.org Web site.
(U) Table of Contents
(U) Purpose
(U) Executive Summary
(U) Key Judgments
(U) Background
(U) Discussion
(U) Intelligence Gaps
(U) Conclusions
(U) Point of Contact
(U) References
(U) Appendix A: Glossary
(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis of Leaked Tables of
Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
(U) Tables
(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216) Table of
Equipment (TOE)
(U) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by Wikileaks.org for
the NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004‖
[NGIC-1127-7138-06] posted on its Web site
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 5 of 32
(U) Figures
(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser
(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004‖ As Published in a Wikileaks.org Article.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Background
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and
technologists from the United States, China, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Its
Web site became operational in early 2007. The advisory board for Wikileaks.org includes
journalists, cryptographers, a ―former US intelligence analyst,‖ and expatriates from Chinese,
Russian, and Tibetan refugee communities. The ACIC does not have any information to
associate or link the ―former US intelligence analyst‖ on the Wikileaks.org advisory board with
the leakage of sensitive or classified DoD documents posted to the Web site.[6]
(U) Wikileaks.org claims to have developed an uncensorable version of the publicly available
Wikipedia interface that is intended for mass leakage of sensitive documents that expose
wrongdoing and for allowing users to comment on the documents posted to the Web site.
Through its Web site, Wikileaks.org encourages large-scale anonymous leaking and posting of
sensitive and confidential government and business documents on the Internet. Wikileaks.org
claims to have received more than 1.2 million documents from dissident communities and
anonymous sources throughout the world. If true, additional articles involving sensitive or
classified DoD will most likely be posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site in the future.[7]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses its own coded software combined with Wiki, MediaWiki, OpenSSL,
FreeNet, TOR, and PGP to make it difficult for foreign governments, FISS, law enforcement
agencies, and foreign businesses to determine where a leaked document originated from and who
was responsible for leaking the document. The goal of Wikileaks.org is to ensure that leaked
information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations, and individual users because
once a leaked document is placed on the Internet it is extremely difficult to remove the document
entirely.[8]
(S//NF) The obscurification technology[9] used by Wikileaks.org has exploitable vulnerabilities.
Organizations with properly trained cyber technicians, the proper equipment, and the proper
technical software could most likely conduct computer network exploitation (CNE) operations or
use cyber tradecraft to obtain access to Wikileaks.org‘s Web site, information systems, or
networks that may assist in identifying those persons supplying the data and the means by which
they transmitted the data to Wikileaks.org. Forensic analysis of DoD unclassified and classified
networks may reveal the location of the information systems used to download the leaked
documents. The metadata, MD5 hash marks, and other unique identifying information within
digital documents may assist in identifying the parties responsible for leaking the information. In
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 6 of 32
addition, patterns involving the types of leaked information, classification levels of the leaked
information, development of psychological profiles, and inadvertent attribution of an insider
through poor OPSEC could also assist in the identification of insiders.
(U) Wikileaks.org supports the US Supreme Court ruling regarding the unauthorized release of
the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, which stated that ―only a free and unrestrained press can
effectively expose deception in government.‖ The Wikileaks.org Web site further states the
following:
―We aim for maximum political impact. We believe that transparency in
government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government, and
stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the
world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires
information. Historically that information has been costly—in terms of human life
and human rights. But with technological advances—the Internet, and
cryptography—the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.‖[10]
(U) The OPSEC measures used in the submission of leaked information to Wikileaks using the
Internet are designed to protect the identity and personal security of the persons or entities
sending or posting information to the Web site. Wikileaks.org claims that any attempt at trace
routing of IP addresses, MAC addresses, and other identifying information of a home computer
submissions (as opposed to cyber café submissions) through Wikileaks.org‘s Internet submission
system would require a knowledge of information available only to Wikileaks.org programmers
and to a rights organization serving the electronic community, or would require specialized
ubiquitous traffic analysis of Internet messages and routing systems. Nevertheless, it remains
technically feasible for FISS, law enforcement organizations, and foreign businesses that have
the motivation, intentions, capability, and opportunity to gain online access or physical access to
Wikileaks.org information systems to identify and trace whistleblowers through cyber
investigations, advanced cyber tools, and forensics.[11]
(U) Another method of posting leaked information to the Web site anonymously is for leakers to
use postal mail to send the information to volunteers in various countries who have agreed to
receive encrypted CDs and DVDs from leakers. These volunteers then forward the information
to designated personnel, who then upload the data on the CDs and DVDs to the Wikileaks.org
Web servers. To protect or mask the sender, leakers can take OPSEC measures such as using
Wikileaks.org encryption protocols when writing CDs and DVDs; using gloves while wrapping,
taping, handling, and mailing packages; and not including a return address or including a fake
return address on packages containing leaked information. Such measures are designed to protect
the identity of the leakers and prevent FISS, law enforcement, and postal inspectors from
intercepting the mail and decoding the information on the data storage devices in transit.
Wikileaks.org also claims that it is developing easy-to-use software to encrypt the CDs and
DVDs. Use of such methods also protects facilitators or intermediaries from harm because they
would not know the content of the encrypted submissions.[12]
(U) A Wikileaks.org spokesperson stated in early January 2007 that about 22 persons are
involved in the Open Society Initiative to make governments and corporations more accountable
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 7 of 32
to the citizens of the world. Wikileaks intends to seek funding from individual persons and
groups such as humanitarian organizations that fund sociopolitical activity intended to promote
democracy and human rights around the world through open access to government and business
information.[13]
(S//NF) Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and
Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site to prevent citizens
or adversaries from accessing sensitive information, embarrassing information, or alleged
propaganda. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia have asserted that they have a right to
remove from the Internet protected government information, disinformation, and propaganda that
is intended to embarrass or make false allegations against their governments. China, Israel, North
Korea, and Russia are assessed to have state-sponsored CNE, computer network attack (CNA),
and cyber forensics capabilities that would most likely allow penetration or disrupt viewing of
the Wikileaks.org Web site. China, Israel, and Russia have used or are suspected of having used
CNA to target terrorist or dissident Web sites that have posted objectionable material intended to
embarrass, harm, or encourage terrorism or opposition to the government.[14]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Discussion
(U//FOUO) An insider could present a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, or
INFOSEC threat to the US Army through deliberate unauthorized release of official DoD
documents and posting of sensitive or classified information to the Internet. Several recent
postings to the Wikileaks.org Web site in November 2007 of sensitive US Army information
marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and in December 2007 of US Army
information classified SECRET//NOFORN highlight the insider threat to DoD. The actual
perpetrators responsible for the unauthorized released of such documents could be subject to
administrative action, nonjudicial punishment, or criminal charges and prosecution if they are
identified.
(U) Wikileaks.org Analysis of US Army Tables of Equipment in Iraq and
Afghanistan from April 2007
(U) Wikileaks.org specifically cited 2,000 pages of leaked US Army documents with information
on the Tables of Equipment (TOEs) for US and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as a
perfect example of the sort of information that would benefit from a global analysis. These
documents provided information on the US forces, a description of equipment and total number
of equipment that were assigned to actual military units assigned to US Central Command in
April 2007. Wikileaks.org staff members and various authors and contributors have written
numerous news articles and posted the raw data in spreadsheets or Structured Query Language
(SQL) data base so anyone can examine the information, conduct research, comment upon,
discuss the various units, see the items of equipment, see what they do, and draw their own
conclusions about the strategic, political, military, and human rights significance of the
information.[15]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 8 of 32
(U//FOUO) Table 1 below is an abbreviated sample of information contained in a leaked digital
database document or spreadsheets available on the Wikileaks.org Web site:
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216)
Table of Equipment (TOE). [16]
UIC LIN NSN Item Name PBIC Type DND Qnty
M94216 72045Z 581001X111125 WARLOCK GREEN, ECM:
GREEN EDO CO
V TPE N 15
M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED
EDO COMM &
T TPE N 2
M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED
EDO COMM &
V TPE N 13
M94216 B67766 1.24001E+12 BINOCULA MOD CN M22 N TPE N 9
M94216 E63317 6.60501E+12 COMPAS MAGNETIC UNMTD P TPE N 3
M94216 J03261 5.85501E+12 ILLUMI INFR AN/PEQ-2A P TPE N 6
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 4
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 8
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49
M94216 L91975 1.005E+12 MG 50 M2 HB FL GD/VEH P TPE N 3
M94216 L92352 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240 N TPE N 2
M94216 M09009 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 5.56MM M249 P TPE N 3
M94216 M74823 1.01001E+12 MT MACH GUN MK64 MOD9 T TPE N 1
M94216 M75577 1.005E+12 MT TPD MG CAL .50 M3 P TPE N 1
M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B N TPE N 2
M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B T TPE N 2
M94216 N05482 5.85501E+12 NIGHT VIS G AN/PVS-7B P TPE N 8
M94216 T92446 2.32001E+12 TRK UTIL HMMWV M1114 T TPE N 1
M94216 W95537 2.33001E+12 TRL CGO 3/4T M101 2WH T TPE N 3
M94216 YF2014 232001C043031 HMMWV M1114: W/ OFK5 T TPE N 2
M94216 YF2049 2.32001E+12 TRUCK,UTILITY-(M1116) T TPE N 1
Legend:
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 9 of 32
UIC – Unit Identification Code, a six-character, alphanumeric code that uniquely identifies each
Active, Reserve, and National Guard unit of the US Armed Forces.
LIN – Line Item Number for equipment.
NSN – NATO Stock Number, a standardized stack identification number for supplies and
equipment within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Item Name - Brief description of the equipment.
PBIC – Property Book Identification Code, which categorizes the type of property listed into one
of 10 categories.
Type (of equipment):
TPE – Theater Provided Equipment; specific equipment that is provided by the
Theater of Operations such as CENTCOM to perform the mission based on the
unique operating environment
LTT – Long Term Training; equipment need for long term training or
deployment.
APS – Army Prepositioned Stock; equipment drawn by a unit that is already
prepositioned in the Theater of Operations.
DND – Do Not Deploy; this field is a Yes/No column that lists equipment that remains at the
home station and is not deployed with the unit when sent overseas.
OH Qty – On-hand Quantity is the number of item of equipment that is currently available to the
unit; it does not necessarily represent the actual required number needed by the unit to be fully
mission capable.[17]
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY
(S//NF) The foreign staff writer for Wikileaks.org, Julian Assange, wrote several news articles,
coauthored other articles, and developed an interactive data base for the leaked documents. In
addition, other Wikileaks.org writers and various writers for other media publications wrote
separate news articles based on the leaked information posted to the Web site. Assange and his
coauthors claim that the 2,000 pages of leaked US military information provides unit names,
organizational structure, and tables of equipment (TOEs) for the US Army in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They also claimed that unidentified persons within the US government leaked the
information to facilitate action by the US Congress to force the withdrawal of US troops by
cutting off funding for the war.[18]
(U//FOUO) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers purport that the leaked sensitive TOE
information reveals the following:
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 10 of 32
Secretive US document exploitation centers.
Detainee operations and alleged human rights violations.
Information on the US State Department, US Air Force, US Navy and US Marines units,
Iraqi police and coalition forces from Poland, Denmark, Ukraine, Latvia, Slovakia,
Romania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and El Salvador serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nearly the entire order of battle for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as of April 2007.
Alleged revelations that the US government violated the Chemical Weapons Convention
in Iraq and Afghanistan.[19]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org encouraged persons to comment on the leaked Army documents and
explained how the catalogued information and cross-referenced databases could be used by other
researchers or journalists to prepare reports or assessments. According to Wikileaks.org, the
information posted can be used to prepare objective new reports. Conversely, this same
information could be manipulated to prepare biased news reports or be used for conducting
propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, perception management, or influence operations
against the US Army by a variety of domestic and foreign actors. [20]
(U) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers developed and applied a specific methodology for
examining and analyzing the leaked TOE information, a methodology they then placed online to
assist others in conducting their own research. See Appendix B. They also provided links to
associated online reference material. The methodology used by Assange and other authors for the
analysis of leaked tables of equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan both a SQLite
database is described in Appendix B.
(S//NF) The TOEs for US Army units deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq in April 2007 provide a
wealth of information that could be used by FISS, foreign terrorist groups, and Iraqi insurgents to
identify unit capabilities and vulnerabilities that could assist in conducting attacks against camps,
convoys, and other targets. The information can also be compared with other publicly available
databases to develop extensive order of battle files of vehicle types, communications and
jamming equipment, information systems, and weapons systems, files that could be used to
determine the capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities of the organic equipment assigned to
military units. Such information could aid enemy forces in planning terrorist attacks, selecting
the most effective type and emplacement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), building
triggering devices to defeat countermeasures organic to friendly units, and selecting the most
effective direct and indirect weapons systems for conducting physical attacks against targets such
as military units, convoys, and base camps.
(U) One Wikileaks.org news article also discusses the use of IEDs by foreign terrorists and
insurgent groups and claims that the IED threat has resulted in a shift in DoD funding priorities,
similar to the Manhattan Project to develop atomic weapons in World War II, for current
research, development and fielding of IED countermeasures through the Joint IED Defeat
Organization. In addition, the author of the article attempts to provide a cost-to-benefit analysis
of these IED tactics and countermeasures. The author claims that the leaked information reveals
that 12,097 Warlock, Counter RCIED (Remote-controlled Improvised Explosive Device)
Electronic Warfare (CREW), systems are in Iraq and that the purpose of the Warlock is to jam
radio signals from devices such as mobile phones to prevent such signals from detonating IEDs.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 11 of 32
The author claimed that 7,530 systems used in Iraq were purchased at a cost of $1.1 billion. No
claim was made regarding the cost of remaining 4,567 systems.
(S//NF) The author of the above-mentioned article incorrectly interprets the leaked data
regarding the components and fielding of the Warlock system, resulting in unsupportable and
faulty conclusions to allege war profiteering, price gouging and increased revenues by DoD
contractors involved in counter-IED development efforts. This article provides an example of
how the leaked TOE information can be manipulated and misinterpreted to produce inaccurate
information for a news article.
(S//NF) The author of the article then argues that the US Army receives a poor return on its
investment in counter-IEDs. The following excerpt from the article could be used by adversaries
in potential propaganda or influence operations:
If we view IEDs as a rebel investment, to which the United States must pay
dividends in defensive equipment costs, then every insurgent dollar spent has a
return on investment of somewhere around a thousand fold. Significant price
gouging by counter-IED defense contractors is evident. For comparison, each
briefcase-sized ―Warlock‖ IED jammer, of which is there is on average more than
one per vehicle, is worth $150,000; however, as can be seen by this analysis that
is more costly than nearly every vehicle it was designed to protect. The
―Warlock‖ producer, a DoD defense contractor [name redacted], predicts
financial year 2007 will see a 400 percent total revenue increase over its 2003
levels.[21]
(S//NF) Intelligence indicates that insurgents in Afghanistan have recovered several Warlock
systems.[22] It is possible that Warlock systems captured in Afghanistan were sent to Iran for
reverse engineering and for use in developing countermeasures to Warlock.
(S//NF) Were a Warlock system successfully reversed engineered or countermeasures
successfully developed by foreign terrorists, insurgents, or the Iranian government, US and
Coalition forces would be at greater risk of RCIED attacks, especially those units equipped with
Warlock systems similar to those that had been captured and exploited. It is also possible that
any countermeasures developed to defeat the Warlock system would be provided to the Jaysh al-
Mahdi (JAM) and other anti-US insurgent or terrorist groups operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The TOEs could be used to identify and target specific units equipped with the same type of
Warlock systems for which countermeasures had been developed.
(U) The Wikileaks.org authors believe that the leaked documents list Army equipment held by
the US Army, Marines, Air Force, Coalition, and possibly CIA units in Iraq and Afghanistan as
of April 2007. The authors stated that the data only includes items registered with battle planning
systems for logistics and appears to cover most valuable major end items of equipment. The data,
according to the authors, does not include soldiers‘ combat pay, transportation, research and
development, and home station costs of the soldiers, nor does it include most supplies,
ammunition, and other disposable equipment and consumable items.[23]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 12 of 32
(U) Wikileaks.org staff personnel allegedly wrote a script or computer program to cross
reference each item in the leaked document with NSNs gleaned from public US logistics
equipment price catalogs from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The authors claim that
$1.112 billion worth of US Army-managed military equipment in Afghanistan is listed in the
leaked documents. The author believed the actual total value of the equipment to be several times
higher.[24]
(U) The spreadsheets and list contains codes to identify military units, supply item codes, and
other logistics data. The authors believed that the most useful data field for investigatory
purposes was the NSN. The authors found several Internet sites that allow public searches of the
NSNs, and this information was merged with the TOE into the SQL-generated database on the
Web site. For example, the author specifically mentioned NSN catalogues that are publicly
available on the Internet from the DLA.[25] The DLA Web site identifies many items on the
spreadsheets and includes prices that were merged into the database and used to generate the
estimate for the total value of the equipment.[26]
(U//FOUO) Julian Assange also stated in his news articles involving the TOE information that
persons were welcome to assist in the following future actions and areas of research involving
the equipment listings:
A computer program would be written to expand the military unit abbreviations (for
example, HHC—Headquarters and Headquarters Company) to make is easier for users to
visually analyze entries in the database.
Make further comments on military units in the list and their significance. The entries
would be cross linked with available news sources.
Make further comments on equipment items in the list and their significance.
Expand and improve links and other information for US war-funding legislation and bills.
Attempt to answer questions on specific issues with NSN codes. The authors stated that
the NSNs are a 13-digit code. Of those 13 digits, 12 are numeric. The seventh is
alphanumeric, and the publicly searchable NSN database seems to be able to locate items
if they have a number in the seventh place, but, not if there is a letter in the seventh place.
They ask the following questions: 1) What is the significance for this alphanumeric
character in the seventh position? 2) What does a letter as opposed to a number signify?
3) Is there a more complete public database for NSN codes than the one given? 4) Are
these alphanumeric NSNs Management Control Numbers as speculated?
Create an interactive database browser.[27]
(U) Julian Assange and other Wikileaks.org authors continually encourage other persons with an
interest in the information to comment on their work or conduct their own research and publish
the results on Wikileaks.org.
(U) Alleged Violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty by US
Military in Iraq and Afghanistan
(U) On 9 November 2007, Wikileaks.org published an exclusive investigative report claiming
that the United States ―had almost certainly violated the Chemical Weapons Convention‖
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 13 of 32
(CWC), as originally drafted by the United Kingdom in 1997. The author, Julian Assange,
claimed the deployment of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile also called Chlorobenzylidene
Malononitrile) munitions and dispensing equipment and weapons capable of firing CS gas by the
United States was a violation of the CWC. The author also claimed the United States had at least
2,386 low-grade chemical weapons deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. These items also appeared
in the 2,000-page listing of nearly one million items of US military equipment deployed in Iraq
and leaked to Wikileaks.org. The items are labeled under the military‘s own NATO supply
classification for chemical weapons and equipment.[28]
(U) Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Defense Department released an official statement
that President Bush had authorized US military forces to use riot control agents (RCAs) such as
tear gas or CS gas. See Figure 1. The Defense Department stated that tear gas or CS gas, which
was issued to US troops, would be used only to save civilian lives and in accordance with the
CWC, as amended and ratified by the United States. Some chemical weapons experts in the
United States and other countries expressed the belief that this 2003 authorization might violate
the CWC treaty. These domestic and foreign critics expressed the belief that any battlefield use
of tear gas would violate the CWC; offend crucial allies, including the United Kingdom and
Australia. In addition, the critics claimed that the usage of CS would provide the Iraqi leader,
Saddam Hussein, a pretext for using chemical weapons against the United States and coalition
forces.[29]
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U//FOUO) In the report published on Wikileaks.org, the author claimed that any use of
chemical weapons such as CS gas for military operations is illegal. The Chemical Weapons
Convention of 1997, drafted by the United Kingdom declares ―Each State Party undertakes not
to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.‖ It only grants permissible use to ―law
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 14 of 32
enforcement including domestic riot control.‖ The authors used this interpretation of the CWC
drafted by the United Kingdom to make the allegation that the United States had violated the
treaty. [30]
(U//FOUO) It must be noted, that US policy as stated in Executive Order No. 11850, 8 April
1975, Renunciation of Certain Uses in War of Chemical Herbicides and Riot Control Agents,
renounced first use of herbicides in war (except for specified defensive uses) and first use of
RCAs in war except for defensive military modes to save lives. In ratifying the CWC, the US
Senate wrote an amendment into its resolution approving the CWC that stated United States‘
interpretation of how RCAs might be used for specific defensive purposes, as specified by the
1975 Executive Order.[31]
(U) Such varying interpretations reflect a deliberate ambiguity in the CWC, which states that
―riot-control agents may not be used as a method of warfare.‖ The original CWC and modified
CWC approved by the US Senate, however, does not define this phrase ―method of warfare.‖
The actual version of the CWC passed by the US Senate was not considered by the authors of the
report. The CWC ratified by the US Senate list exceptions in the usage of RCAs for US military
forces that are not considered by the US government to be in violation of the CWC.[32]
(U) In the same report, the authors claimed that the use of white phosphorus by the US military
during the 2004 assault on Fallujah, Iraq, should also be considered a violation of the CWC. The
authors noted, however, that the US Army claimed usage of white phosphorous as ―a smoke
screen‖ and ―an incendiary‖ in the Fallujah operation, and that this usage is not technically
covered by the CWC.
(U) Alleged Human Rights Violations Related to Joint Task Force–Guantanamo
Standard Operating Procedures
(U//FOUO) Another example of leaked information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site on or
about 7 November 2007 is an outdated copy of the Joint Task Force–Guantanamo, Camp Delta
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) marked as UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO, signed by MG
Miller and dated 28 March 2003. A news article written by Wikileaks.org staff writers, also
posted on 7 November 2007, claims the SOP exposes systematic methods for preventing illegal
combatants and detained prisoners incarcerated at Joint Task Force–Guantanamo facilities at
Camp Delta from meeting with the International Red Cross, as well as the use of extreme
psychological stress as a means of torture against detainees. The unauthorized release of the SOP
has prompted authors posting to the Wikileaks.org Web site to claim that the document proves
the US Army was torturing and violating the human rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
This SOP was also the subject of a lawsuit by international human rights groups and a domestic
civil rights organization requesting the release of the document under the US Freedom of
Information Act.[33]
(U) The author claimed that subsequent US military statements including a DoD spokesperson,
to Reuters News Service and the Miami Herald confirm the veracity of the JTF SOP document.
On Wednesday, 14 November 2007, a week after the SOP was posted to Web site, Wikileaks.org
claimed that it received an e-mail message from the ―Pentagon‖ (DoD) demanding that the
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 15 of 32
documents posted to the Web site be censored and removed from the Web site. The actual
wording of the DoD e-mail message sent to Wikileaks.org requested that the document be
removed from the Web site and that the procedures under the Freedom of Information Act be
used to request release of the SOP.[34]
(U) Leakage of Classified Information to Wikileaks.org
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org also posted a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC),
classified SECRET//NOFORN, entitled ― (U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April
2004,” (NGIC-1127-7138-06). The NGIC report was the second in a series of reports that
analyzed recent warfare in complex environments such as urban environments. See Figure 2.
The NGIC report discusses enemy use of asymmetric tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP)
during the Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 and offers many useful lessons learned regarding how
a relatively weak adversary can prevent the United States from accomplishing its military
objectives. Wikileaks.org claims the document was leaked by a source it refers to as ―Peryton,‖
who is described as a former employee of NGIC. Both a copy of the actual NGIC classified
report (in PDF) and the Wikileaks.org news article were posted on the Wikileaks.org Web site. A
variety of newspapers, wire services, and other news and media organizations wrote numerous
articles based on the original Wikileaks.org news article and actual classified document posted to
their Web site.[35]
(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole may exist within DoD or elsewhere in
the US government who is actively providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org
cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the claim that the leaker is a former NGIC employee is highly
suspect, since Wikileaks.org claims that the protection of the anonymity of the ―whistleblower‖
or ―leaker‖ is one of its primary concerns. In addition, this claim could simply be a crude attempt
to mislead investigations into who leaked the document. Use of a code name, incorrect
employment information, or incorrect status are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures
designed to protect the identity of the current or former ―insider‖ who leaked the information. In
addition, usage of present and past verb tenses and other contradictions in referencing ―Peryton‖
by the Wikileaks author and staff personnel are most likely part of a deliberate deception, but
one cannot completely rule out the possibility that some of these contradictions could be
inadvertent OPSEC errors made by authors lacking experience in protecting their methods or
sources.
(S//NF) Unclassified e-mail addresses and work telephone numbers of the authors and other
persons referenced in the NGIC report were listed in the NGIC document, thus making them
available to members of the news media attempting to verify the leaked information.
Wikileaks.org and some other news organizations did attempt to contact the NGIC personnel by
e-mail or telephone to verify the information. Such efforts by Wikileaks.org to verify the
information are in contravention to its stated policy not to attempt to verify the information it
receives from its sources. Wikileaks.org went forward with publishing their news article based
on the classified NGIC report although they did not receive a response to their inquiry. This is of
interest because some journalists exploit the lack of a response to their inquiries by implying that
a refusal to respond, failure to respond to a FOIA request, or failure to verify or receive other
information presumes that those failing to respond have something to hide. This further weakens
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 16 of 32
the claim that an alleged former NGIC employee leaked the information and strengthens other
possibilities. A former NGIC employee would be regarded by many as a highly credible source
and either taken at his or her word or asked to provide other bona fides to verify the employment
claim. Given the high visibility and publicity associated with publishing this classified report by
Wikileaks.org, however, attempts to verify the information were prudent and show journalist
responsibility to the newsworthiness or fair use of the classified document if they are
investigated or challenged in court.[36]
SECRET//NOFORN
(U) The following is a description of the map and explanation of the classification markings
provided in the Wikileaks.org article: ―Map from page four of the leaked report on the failed 2004
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 17 of 32
assault on the Iraqi town of Fallujah, which is situated 40 miles from Baghdad. The report is
classified SECRET/NOFORN. NOFORN means do not share with US allies such as the UK,
Australia, and Canada. 20310603 is date after which 25 years have elapsed and the document would
normally be declassified. X1 specifies that the document is exempt from declassification.‖
(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004” As Published in a Wikileaks.org
Article.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(S//NF) The author on the Wikileaks.org staff published the article using selected excerpts and
used information that was out of context from the actual NGIC report. The article intertwined
classified information from the NGIC report and information gleaned from other news articles in
the open media to strengthen its portrayal of the coalition offensive operations in Fallujah in
2004 as a military and political defeat for the United States. The leakage of this NGIC report
could allow anti-Coalition forces to portray themselves as victors because they successfully
manipulated the media coverage in the April 2004 battle to divide the coalition forces politically
and force a halt to the offensive operations. The leaked report could also provide foreign
governments, terrorists, and insurgents with insight into successful asymmetric warfare tactics,
techniques, and procedures that could be used when engaging US or Coalition forces and provide
insight into effective media, information, or influence operations that could be used to defeat a
superior enemy.[37]
(U) The catalogue, indexing and filing entry on the Wikileaks.org Web site for the leaked NGIC
document is in Table 2, below. This is the information as posted on the Wikileaks.org Web site.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(S//NF) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by
Wikileaks.org for the NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex Environments: Battle
of Fallujah I, April 2004” [NGIC-1127-7138-06], as Posted on its Web Site.[38]
File fallujah.pdf (click to view file)
Analysis Al Jazeera and Abu Ghraib scuttled US war in Fallujah
Summary Classified 2006 SECRET//NOFORN report by the US Army National Ground
Intelligence Center. ―Enemy employment of asymmetric tactics, techniques,
and procedures (TTP) during the Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 offers many
useful lessons learned in how a relatively weak adversary can prevent the
United States from accomplishing its military objectives.‖
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 18 of 32
File Size 280144K
File Info PDF document, version 1.4
File Identity SHA256
28d7b0d27805749db32f38088c9ecbb963d4564877e723930cf44d8d0c6c7c8e
Wikileaks release 2007-12-24
Country United States
Organization US Army National Ground Intelligence Center
Organization
type
Military or intelligence (ruling)
Submitted by Peryton [ACIC comment: this is the code name given by Wikileaks.org to the
leaker(s) of the information.]
SECRET//NOFORN
(U) Technical Skills and Abilities
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org developers and technical personnel appear to demonstrate a high level of
sophistication in their efforts to provide a secure operating environment for whistleblowers
desiring to post information to the Web site. They currently use a variety of indigenously
modified free software to build the Web site and route and secure the transmission of data to
Wikileaks.org.
(S//NF) The construction of a SQL database, the merging of leaked documents, and use of
publicly available tools to glean information from the Web sites of various DoD and private
organizations such as globalsecurity.org and then make the information available in a searchable
format, allowing access to and manipulation of the data and information for research purposes by
users of Wikileaks.org, demonstrate a high level of technical capability and resourcefulness.
(S//NF) The current and future intent of the Wikileaks.org staff and writers is to continue
development of enhanced tools for the manipulation of the 2,000 pages of information on US
forces by visitors to the Web site. Future efforts may include expanding the use of encryption,
operational cyber tradecraft, and physical tradecraft in the delivery and transmission of leaked
information for posting to the Wikileaks.org Web site. It is highly likely that transmission
security will improve as new technology, the technical skills of current members, or new funding
sources allow. The purchase of more secure equipment, transmission means, and encryption
protocols is possible if additional financial resources are made available to the organization.
(U) Is it Free Speech or Illegal Speech?
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org allows anonymous publication of information and records without
oversight or accountability; anyone can post information to the Web site, and there is no editorial
review, fact checking, or oversight of the posted information. Persons accessing the Web site are
encouraged to form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information and are
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 19 of 32
allowed to post their own comments. This open policy of posting information and providing
commentary could create multiple legal issues for Wikileaks.org that could subject members to
legal prosecution or civil issues by foreign governments, businesses, and individual
complainants. In addition, some governments may contend that accessing the Web site itself is a
crime, and that shutting down or blocking access to the Web site is a reasonable countermeasure
to prevent viewing or downloading of objectionable content. This situation raises the possibility
that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be deliberately used to post fabricated information; to post
misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda; or to conduct perception management and
influence operations designed to convey a negative message to specific audiences.
(U) Diverse views exist within the United States and other countries regarding the stated goals of
Wikileaks.org. Some believe that the leaking and posting of information is constitutionally
protected free speech and supports freedom of the press, open-society initiatives, and
government accountability, and that leaking the information serves the greater good versus any
illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business
information. Others believe that Wikileaks.org or individual persons associated with
Wikileaks.org will face legal challenges in some countries regarding the privacy of individuals
and businesses, the revelation of sensitive or classified government information, or the posting of
information that is allegedly wrong, false, slanderous, or libelous. Several foreign companies
have already filed civil lawsuits in the United States and the United Kingdom for data theft, libel,
and damage to their business reputation for the posting of internal and proprietary company
information to the Wikileaks.org Web site. The Wikileaks.org Web site was temporarily
shutdown in late February 2008 for 2 weeks in the United States by court order over the
publication of sensitive documents in a case involving a potential money laundering, grand
larceny, and tax evasion charges by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.
Julius Bare Bank decided to drop the court case against Wikileaks.org in US courts. The US
court order was lifted and the Web site was restored in the United States.
(U) In addition, several prominent bloggers have questioned the usage and reliability of the
security of the software used to develop the Web site and to protect communications and
identities of leakers. The motives and methods of the Wikileaks.org developers and members
have been questioned, and several bloggers believe that other Internet forums exist that served
the same function in a more ethical manner. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel to
discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it allows uncorroborated
information to be posted, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization for
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Wikileaks.org denies these accusations, and no evidence
has been presented to support such assertions.[39]
(U//FOUO) Questions and concerns have been raised by media consultants, ethics experts, and
other journalists regarding the status of Wikileaks.org as a news organization and of its staff
writers as journalists. The contention by some is that Wikileaks.org does not qualify as a news
organization and thus its staff writers are not journalists. Wikileaks.org‘s desire to expose alleged
wrongdoing by revealing sensitive or classified government or business information, in effect,
encourages the theft of sensitive or classified proprietary information or intellectual property. In
doing so, some argue, Wikileaks.org is knowingly encouraging criminal activities such as the
theft of data, documents, proprietary information, and intellectual property, possible violation of
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 20 of 32
national security laws regarding sedition and espionage, and possible violation of civil laws.
Within the United States and foreign countries the alleged ―whistleblowers‖ are, in effect,
wittingly violating laws and conditions of employment and thus may not qualify as
―whistleblowers‖ protected from disciplinary action or retaliation for reporting wrongdoing in
countries that have such laws. Also, the encouragement and receipt of stolen information or data
is not considered to be an ethical journalistic practice. In addition, the sources of Wikileaks.org
staff writers are not verified, nor are its news articles fact-checked or confirmed by additional
sources, as customary in news organizations. Moreover, there is no editorial review of the
articles prior to publication. Finally, some critics contend that the staff writers are biased and
have made unsupportable claims to support political agendas to effect change in government or
business policy.[40]
(U) Several countries have complained publicly or blocked access to Wikileaks.org and similar
Web sites and have asserted claims that they have the right to investigate and prosecute
Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers. In addition, several countries also claim the right to
remove false information, sensitive or classified government information, propaganda, or other
malicious content from the Internet. As a result, Wikileaks.org members have already posted
information in China on how to circumvent blocks to the Web site imposed by the Chinese
government for having objectionable content related to the participation of Chinese dissents in
Wkileaks.org and to pro-democracy issues. [41]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Intelligence Gaps
(S//NF) What individual persons or entities are leaking DoD sensitive or classified
information to Wikileaks.org, and are they working on behalf of a foreign agent or
power? What are the reasons, intentions, and motivations of the current or former
insider?
(S//NF) Is the potential insider leaking the information to Wikileaks.org a former
employee of the US government or a mole still working for the US government? How is
the insider sending digital information to Wikileaks.org? What cyber or other tradecraft is
the perpetrator using?
(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services,
foreign insurgents, or terrorist groups to collect sensitive or classified US Army
information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site?
(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or
foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation or to
conduct perception or influence operations to discredit the US Army?
(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used for operational or cyber tradecraft to
pass information to or from foreign entities?
(S/NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site developers obtain new software for Web site
development, management, security, encryption of messages or files, or posting
anonymous information to the Web site?
(S//NF) From what foreign personnel or groups does Wikileaks.org receive funding or
collaborate with for sharing information or development of new software?
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 21 of 32
(S//NF) Will foreign entities attempt to conduct CNE or CNA to obtain information on
the posters of information or block content on the Wikileaks.org Web site?
(S//NF) What software, tactics, techniques, and procedures would be used by a foreign
actor to conduct CNE or CNA against the Web site?
(S//NF) Will foreign persons, businesses, or countries attempt civil lawsuits or criminally
prosecute whistleblowers, Wikileaks.org staff, and members who posted comments on
the Web site?
(S//NF) Will Wikileaks.org and various users expand the data fields in the TOE SQL
database to include equipment capabilities, equipment limitations and vulnerabilities,
known unit locations, links to geospatial information services, or known unit personnel to
develop ―battle books‖ for targeting packages?
(S//NF) What other leaked DoD sensitive or classified information has been obtained by
Wikileaks.org?
(S//NF) Will foreign organizations such as FISS, foreign military services, foreign
insurgents, or terrorist groups provide funding or material support to Wikileaks.org?
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Conclusions
(S//NF) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by
protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful
identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the
information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org
would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar
actions.
(U//FOUO) The unauthorized release of DoD information to Wikileaks.org highlights the need
for strong counterintelligence, antiterrorism, force protection, information assurance, INFOSEC,
and OPSEC programs to train Army personnel on the proper procedures for protecting sensitive
or classified information, to understand the insider threat, and to report suspicious activities. In
addition, personnel need to know proper procedures for reporting the loss, theft, or comprise of
hard or soft copy documents with sensitive information or classified information to the
appropriate unit, law enforcement, or counterintelligence personnel. Unfortunately, such
programs will not deter insiders from following what they believe is their obligation to expose
alleged wrongdoing within DoD through inappropriate venues. Persons engaged in such activity
already know how to properly handle and secure sensitive or classified information from these
various security and education programs and has chosen to flout them.
(S//NF) It must be presumed that Wikileaks.org has or will receive sensitive or classified DoD
documents in the future. This information will be published and analyzed over time by a variety
of personnel and organizations with the goal of influencing US policy. In addition, it must also
be presumed that foreign adversaries will review and assess any DoD sensitive or classified
information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site. Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will
continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection,
counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 22 of 32
Sensitive or classified information posted to Wikileaks.org could potentially reveal the
capabilities and vulnerabilities of US forces, whether stationed in CONUS or deployed overseas.
(S//NF) The proliferation of access to Internet, computer, and information technology technical
skills, software, tools, and databases will allow the rapid development, merging, integration, and
manipulation of diverse documents, spreadsheets, multiple databases, and other publicly
available or leaked information. Possible enhancements could increase the risk to US forces and
could potentially provide potential attackers with sufficient information to plan conventional or
terrorist attacks in locations such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
(S//NF) The various open or freeware applications used in the development and management of
Wikileaks.org continue to improve with time. Several Internet software development companies,
foundations, electronic privacy organizations, database management services, encryption
developers, and anonymous e-mail services can generate sufficient income, accept donations,
and use volunteers to continue to develop and improve the software. Improvements in these
software applications will provide greater privacy and anonymity of persons who leak
information to Wikileaks.org.
(S//NF) The possibility that various computer experts, researchers, and users could expand the
data fields in the TOE SQL database to include pictures; equipment capabilities, limitations and
vulnerabilities; known unit locations; links to geospatial information; and known unit personnel
cannot be ruled out. The continued development of new technologies for merging and integrating
various geographic or other information services into easy-to-use databases could allow rapid
compilation of unit profiles that could be used for developing actionable information for use by
FISS, foreign terrorist organizations, and other potential adversaries for intelligence collection,
planning, or targeting purposes.[42]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Point of Contact
(U) This special report was produced by the Army Counterintelligence Center (ACIC). ACIC
POC is Michael D. Horvath, Senior Analyst, Cyber CI Assessments Branch, commercial, 301-
677-2489 or DSN 622-2489.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Appendix A: Glossary
(U) FreeNet (or Freenet). Freenet is a decentralized and censorship-resistant distributed data
storage system. Freenet aims to provide freedom of speech through a peer-to-peer network with
strong protection of anonymity. Freenet pools contributed bandwidth and storage space of
member computers in the network to allow users to anonymously publish or retrieve various
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 23 of 32
kinds of data or information. The storage space is distributed among all connected nodes on
Freenet.[43]
(U) Google Earth. Google Earth is a geographic information system (GIS) using the Google
search engine that permits interactive viewing of digital satellite imagery, maps, terrain, and 3D
buildings.[44]
(U) MediaWiki. Wikipedia runs on its own in-house-created software, known as MediaWiki, a
powerful, open-source wiki system written in PHP and built upon MySQL. As well as allowing
articles to be written, it includes a basic internal macro language, variables, transcluded
templating system for page enhancement, and features such as redirection.[45]
(U) OpenSSL. The OpenSSL Project is a collaborative effort to develop an easy-to-use Open
Source toolkit implementing the Secure Sockets Layer and Transport Layer Security protocols
with encryption. The project is managed by a worldwide community of volunteers that use the
Internet to communicate, plan, and develop the OpenSSL toolkit and its related documentation.
The OpenSSL toolkit is licensed in a manner that allows free usage for commercial and
noncommercial purposes subject to some simple license conditions. [46]
(U) PGP. PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is an application and protocol for secure e-mail and file
encryption developed by Phil Zimmerman. PGP was originally published as freeware, and the
source code has always been available for public use and adaptation. PGP uses a variety of
algorithms, such as IDEA, RSA, DSA, MD5, and SHA-1 for providing encryption,
authentication, message integrity, and private and public-key management. PGP is based on the
―Web-of-Trust‖ model and is the most popular encryption system used by individual personnel,
businesses, and governmental entities throughout the world to protect or hide content on the
Internet. [47]
(U) SQL. SQL (Structured Query Language) is also known as Database Language SQL (S-Q-L),
is a computer language designed for the retrieval and management of data in a relational
database management system, database schema creation and modification, and database object
access control management. SQL is a standard interactive and programming language for getting
information from and to update a database. Queries take the form of a command language that
lets you select, insert, update, find out the location of data, and so forth. [48]
(U) SQLite. SQLite is a public domain software library that implements a self-contained,
serverless, zero-configuration application that does not require setup or administration, cross
platform, transactional SQL database engine that can support terabyte-sized databases and
gigabyte-sized strings and blobs. SQLite is the most widely deployed SQL database engine in the
world. The software application is used in countless desktop computer applications as well as
consumer electronic devices including cellular phones, Personal Digital Assistants, and MP3
players. The source code for SQLite is in the public domain. SQLite is a popular choice as the
database to back small-to-medium-sized Web sites because it requires no or little configuration
and stores information in ordered disk files that are easy to access and will preserve transactions
after system crashes or power outages. SQLite is a completely self contained application that has
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 24 of 32
a small code print (250KB size fully configured) and is a faster client/server for common
operations. [49]
(U) TOR (or Tor). Tor (The Onion Router) is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people or
various groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet. It also enables software
developers to create new communication tools with built-in privacy features. Tor provides the
foundation for a range of applications that allow organizations and individuals to share
information over public networks without compromising their privacy. Using Tor protects you
against a common form of Internet surveillance known as ―traffic analysis.‖ [50]
(U) Traffic analysis. Traffic analysis is a form of pattern and usage analysis that can be used to
infer who sending or receiving e-mail and data exchanges on a private network, public network,
or the Internet. Knowing the source and destination of Internet traffic allows individuals,
criminals, law enforcement, and intelligence and security services to track the activities,
behavior, and interests of the sender or receiver. This form of pattern analysis can be used to
identify persons and possibly threaten a person‘s employment and physical safety by revealing
who and where they are located. [51]
(U) Web servers. Web servers are computer hardware that stores HTML documents, images,
text files, scripts, and other Web-related data, collectively known as content, and distributes this
content to other clients on the network upon request.
(U) Wiki. A wiki is a type of Web site that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit
and change some available content, sometimes without the need for registration. This ease of
interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative authoring. The term
wiki can also refer to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation
of such a Web site or to certain specific wiki sites and the online encyclopedias such as
Wikipedia. Wiki was created in 1994 and installed on the Web in 1995 by Ward Cunningham.
[52]
(U) Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a blend of the words wiki and encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a
multilingual, Web-based free content encyclopedia project operated by the nonprofit Wikimedia
Foundation. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be
changed by almost anyone with access to the Web site. Wikipedia‘s main Web servers are in
Tampa, FL, with additional Web servers in Amsterdam and Seoul.[53]
[Back to Table of Contents]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 25 of 32
(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis
of Leaked Tables of Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan
(U) A Wikileaks.org staff writer, Julian Assange, with assistance from several other persons
developed a SQL data base to store the 2,000 pages of leaked TOE information and merged
information from other sources into a usable data base for research purposes. The entire SQL
database developed by the authors for the TOEs was posted on the Wikileaks Web site for
anyone to use. The following is a list of steps purportedly used to make the data easy to use and
accessible for persons wanting to conduct their research.
1. Julian Assange and other persons that assisted him used publicly available open-source
information to learn and understand the abbreviations, acronyms, numbers, and other
nomenclatures in the leaked information, specifically NSN (NATO Stock Number), LIN (Line
Item Number), and UIC (Unit Identification Code). The authors compiled their results and
documented the information on US military logistics in a separate document on the Web site.
2. They then found various public NSN catalogues on the Internet, which were used to confirm
the validity of random samples of the leaked information using these databases and other
deployment references.
3. By hand, they created tallies for a select list of interesting items through their observations of
the reviewed information within the database. They wrote a draft report based on their research
and analysis of the database and other publicly available information.
4. They then used software and software applications such as VIM macros, PERL scripts, and
several Python programs to organize the material into a more presentable spreadsheet format
(such as Afghanistan OEF Property List and Afghanistan OEF Property List.html).
5. They wrote additional software code to merge data from several NATO Logistics
spreadsheets, which allowed the NSNs to be organized into subcategories to identify the NATO
Supply Group and NATO Supply Classification for the equipment.
6. They obtained a list of NATO Supply Group and NATO Supply Classification codes from
public US military logistics sources available on the Internet that was merged with other
spreadsheets.
7. They used SQL to install a database program.
8. They merged the original leaked data into group and classification code tables using a SQL
database, in this case using SQLite. The authors noted that any SQL database could have been
used to index and catalogue the information.
9. They used SQL to merge NATO Supply Classifications with leaked data to provide extra
context and generate Afghanistan OEF Property List-extended.html.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 26 of 32
10. Using SQL, they generated several different indexes and tallies for the leaked items, by
NATO Supply Group, NATO Supply Classification, and NSN. This data was then converted into
HTML format and placed into an appendix.
11. Again using SQL, they generated a unique list of NSNs. They wrote a script or software
program to concurrently query the US logistics Web-query NSN search for pricing information
and extract the price for every NSN on the list (except for alphanumeric NSNs, which are not
listed, probably due to being Management Control Numbers).[54]
12. They merged pricing information into the SQL database.
13. They used SQL to generate a new tally by NSN, merged this with the pricing information for
each NSN, sorted by the total price, converted the data to HTML, and placed it into the
Appendix.
14. They used SQL to calculate the total value of all equipment for which they had cost
information.
15. They examined the data and extracted additional information that was of interest such as
notable units and items of equipment.[55]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) References
[1] (U) Details of coordination available upon request.
[2] (U) Wikileaks. ―Global Defense of Sources and Press Freedoms, Circa Now—Tuesday, 27
November, 2007.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[3] (U) Wikileaks. ―Frequently Asked Questions.‖ URL: htttp://www.wikileaks.org/faq.
Accessed 27 November 2007.
[4] (U) The Times. ―The Week on the Web.‖ 27 January 2007, Accessed through Gale on 29
November 2007. Gale Document Number: CJ158454440. Source Citation; ―The week on the
web.‖ The Times; London, England, 27 January, 2007: 42. Academic One File. Gale. Remote
access for CFSC. 29 November 2007, at http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
(U) Wikileaks. ―About‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[5] (U) Reuters. ―President Hu Jintao of China Has Stepped His Campaign to Purify ‗The
Internet.‘‖ URL: reuters.com. Accessed 29 November 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 27 of 32
(U) DIA. (U) Information Operations Capstone Threat Assessment, Volume 6: Russia. DI-1577-
33-06 Vol. 6, January 2006. SECRET//NOFORN; Derived from: Multiple sources; Declassify
on: 20300804. Accessed on 17 December 2007.
(U) DIA. (U) Information Operations Capstone Threat Assessment, Volume 10: Computer
Network Operations. DI-1577-33-06 Vol. 10, January 2006. SECRET//NOFORN; Derived from:
Multiple sources; Declassify on: 20300804. Accessed on 17 December 2007.
(U) CIA. (U) Assessment of the Counterintelligence Environment in Israel as of April 2006. TD-
314-50963-06, 251859Z JUL 06. SECRET//NOFORN. Derived from: Hum 1-03 by recorded
reporting officer; Declassify on: 25X1-Human CL Reason 1.4(C).
[6] (U) PHSYORG. ―Wikileaks—Website for whistleblowers.‖ URL: www.phsyorg.org.
Accessed 28 November 2007.
[7] (U) Wikileaks. ―About.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[8] (UK//RESTRICTED) Joint Security Co-ordination Centre. (U) United Kingdom Network
Activity Team (UK-NAT) Report: UK-Nat Initial Research into Wikileaks.Org. Serial No. 0047,
13 February 2007. UK//RESTRICTED.
[9] (U) Obscurification technology: the science of obscuring or hiding objects and information.
[10] (U) Wikileaks. ―About.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[11] (U) School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. ―Internet
Geolocation and Evasion.‖ URL: http://cs.smu.ca/~jamuir/papers/TR-06-05.pdf. Accessed 5
January 2008.
(U) Geocities. ―Exposing Tor Users‘ IPs‖ URL:
http//uk.geocities.com/osin1941/exposingtor.html. Accessed on 28 December 2007.
(U) Secunia. ―Multiple Security Vulnerabilities for Tor.‖ CVE-2006-3407, CVE-2006-3408,
CVE-2006-3409, CVE-2006-3410, CVE-2006-0414, CVE-2006-3165, CVE-2006-4508, CVE-
2007-4096, CVE-2007-4097, CVE-2007-4098, CVE-2007-4099, CVE-2007-4174, CVE-2007-
4508, CVE-2007-4099. URL: http://archives.seul.org. Accessed on 8 January 2008.
[12] (U) Wikileaks. ―About.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[13] (U) Federal Times. ― Web Site Aims To Post Government Secrets.‖ 8 January 2007.
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-
2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AFNB:FEDB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx
&rft_dat=116B327
BAEF51E40&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=106D72482B2E456E. Accessed 28
November 2007. Copyright by Federal Times. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 28 of 32
permission of Gannett Co., Inc. by News Bank, Inc. Record Number: fed26373060. Accessed 28
November 2007.
[14] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Reposted
to Web site with permission of the author. All Rights Reserved.
[15] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[16] (U) Wikileaks. ―Excel Spreadsheet: Iraq_OIF_Property_List.‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/ Iraq_OIF_Property_List. Accessed on 27 November 2007.
[17] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[18] (U) Julian Assange is a former computer hacker convicted by the Australian government for
hacking into US government and DoD computer networks in 1997. He is widely known for his
support for open government initiatives, leftist ideology, anti-US views, and opposition to the
Global War on Terrorism.
[19] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[20] (U) Wikileaks. ―About‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[21] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[22] (S//NF) See ACIC Special Report, Iraqi Insurgent and Militia Group Intelligence
Capabilities to Counter US Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Systems, NGIC-2381-7326-
06, for a discussion on the transnational terrorist threat to the Warlock system. In addition, see
ACIC Special Report, Multidiscipline Counterintelligence Threat Assessment for the Counter
Radio Control Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare (CREW)-2 Program, NGIC-
2381-0482-07, for a discussion of the FISS and foreign terrorism threat to the associated critical
program information for the WARLOCK system.
[23] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 29 of 32
[24] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[25] (U) Available at URL:
https://www.webflis.dlis.dla.mil/WEBFLIS/ASPscripts/pub_search.aspx.
[26] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
http://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[27] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[28] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
[29] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
[30] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
(U) US Army. Field Manual 3-11.9: Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and
Compounds—Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. January 2005. Distribution Restriction:
Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited. Available on AKO at www.us.army.mil.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[31] (U) US Army. Field Manual 3-11.9: Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and
Compounds—Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. January 2005. Distribution Restriction:
Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited. Available on AKO at www.us.army.mil.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[32] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
[33] (U) Wikileaks. ―Guantanamo Document Confirms Psychological Torture.‖ 11 November
2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Guantanamo_document_confirms_psychological_torture.
Accessed 27 November 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 30 of 32
(U) Original Citation: US Federal Court. ―United States vs. American Civil Liberties Union.‖
URL:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/20070110/DoD_vaughn_r_denied_in_full_section_6_interim.
pdf. Accessed 17 December 2007.
[34] (U) Carol Rosenberg. Miami Herald. ―Old Manual Sheds Light on Detainee Treatment.‖ 15
November 2007. URL:
http://pd.miami.com/sp?aff=100&keywords=old+manual+sheds+light+on+Detainee+Treatment
&submit=go. Accessed 17 December 2008.
[35] (U) Wikileaks.org. ― Classified U.S. Report into the Fallujah Assult [sic].‖ 25 December
2007. URL: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_U.S_report_into_the_Fallujah_assult.
Accessed 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD
information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be
handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR. Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.
SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived from: Multiple sources. Declassify on 20310306.
[36] Source available on request.
[37] (U) Wikileaks.org. ―Classified U.S. Report into the Fallujah Assult [sic].‖ 25 December
2007. URL: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_U.S_report_into_the_Fallujah_assult.
Accessed 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD
information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be
handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR.) Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I. April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.
SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived from: Multiple sources. Declassify on 20310306.
[38] (U) Wikileaks.org. ―Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004.‖ 25 December
2007. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Complex_Environments:_Battle_of_Fallujah_I%2C_April_2004.
Accessed on 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD
information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be
handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR. Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I. April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.
SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived From: Multiple Sources. Declassify on 20310306.
[39] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required
Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.
(U) Spy Blog. ―Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?‖ 5 January 2007.
URL:
http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_
a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17
December 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 31 of 32
[40] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required
Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.
(U) Spy Blog. ―Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?‖ 5 January 2007.
URL:
http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_
a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17
December 2007.
[41] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required
Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.
(U) Spy Blog. ―Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?‖ 5 January 2007.
URL:
http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_
a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17
December 2007.
[42] (U) Network World. McNamara, Paul. ―Google Earth and ‗collateral damage.‘‖ 19 January
2007. Academic One File. Gale. Remote access for CFSC. 29 November 2007. URL:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE. Gale Document Number: A158081425.
Accessed on 29 November 2007.
[43] (U) Wikipedia. ―Freenet‖ URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet. Accessed on 18
December 2007.
(U) The Freenet Project. ―What is the Freenet Project?‖ URL: http://freenet
project.org/whatis.html. Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[44] (U) Google Earth. ―About Google Earth.‖ URL: http://earth.google.com/. Accessed on 18
December 2007.
[45] (U) Wikipedia. ―About Wikipedia.‖ URL: http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/wikipedia.
Accessed on 17 December 2007.
[46] (U) OpenSSL Project. ―About OpenSSL Project.‖ URL: http://www.openssl.org/. Accessed
17 December 2007.
[47] (U) PGP. ―Glossary for PGP.‖ URL: http://www.pgp.com/company/pgp_glossary.html.
Accessed on 17 December 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 32 of 32
[48] (U) Wikipedia. ―SQL.‖ URL: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL. Accessed on 16 December
2007.
(U) Chapple, Mike. SQL Fundamentals (HTML), About.com: Databases. About.com. Retrieved
on 2007-06-10.
(U) Structured Query Language (SQL) (HTML), International Business Machines, 27 October,
2006. Retrieved on 6 October 2007; Accessed on 17 December 2007.
[49] (U) Sqlite.org. ―SQLITE‖ URL: http://www.sqlite.org/features.html. Accessed on 4 January
2008.
[50] (U) Tor Project. ―Tor: anonymity online.‖ http://www.torproject.org/index.html.en.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[51] (U) Tor Project. ―Why We Need Tor.‖ http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[52] (U) Wikipedia. ―Wiki.‖ URL: http://www.ismc.sgov.gov/wiki/wiki. Accessed on 8 January
2008.
[53] (U) Wikipedia. ―Wikipedia‖ URL: http://www.ismc.sgov.gov/wiki/Wikipedia. Accessed on
8 January 2008.
[54] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
(U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[55] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007. Note: The SQL database referenced in the article is accessible at the following
URL: leak:us_military_equipment_in_iraq_and_afghanistan.sql.gz.
WikiLeaks & The Sunshine Press
http://sunshinepress.org/
The document you have been reading was passed to us by an individual stepping forward to reveal the truth or
preserve the integrity of the historical record. WikiLeaks is acknowledged to be the most successful defender of
confidential sources and the public’s right to know. If you have confidential material, contact us securely at:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/
Our publisher, The Sunshine Press, is an international non-profit organization funded by human rights campaigners,
investigative journalists, technologists, lawyers and the general public. Since 2007 we have exposed thousands of
military, political and corporate abuses—fighting off over 100 legal attacks to do so. No WikiLeaks’ source been ever
exposed and the organization has yet to lose a legal case. Our disclosures have triggered many reforms, including the
removal of two corrupt national governments. We have found that knowledge is suppressed because of its power to
change and that only new knowledge brings meaningful change. Ultimately, the quality of every political, economic
and personal decision depends on understanding the world and how it came to be that way. By revealing the true
state of our world, through millions of pages of suppressed information, we are creating the primary ingredient for a
better civilization. Although our work has won many awards, it is your strong support that preserves our continued
independence and strength.
wikileaks.org
EXCERPT:
The organization has described itself as having been founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[1] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010) describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director.[4]
WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award.[5] In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International's UK Media Award (in the category "New Media") for the 2008 publication of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances",[6] a report by the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[7] In May 2010, the New York Daily News listed WikiLeaks first in a ranking of "websites that could totally change the news".[8]
In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from an incident in which Iraqi civilians were alleged to have been killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review.[9]
Julian Assange targeted
EXCERPT:
Assange: Pentagon could be behind rape claim
Published: 22 Aug 10 13:21 CET | Double click on a word to get a translation
Updated: 22 Aug 10 14:35 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/28514/20100822/
Share28 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has speculated that the Pentagon could be behind a rape accusation that prompted Swedish prosecutors to issue a warrant for his arrest which was later withdrawn.
•Sweden Democrat 'members' site shut down (24 Sep 10)
•Assange free to leave Sweden: lawyer (19 Sep 10)
•Assange: 'I'm the only victim' in rape scandal (8 Sep 10)
The country's prosecution service meanwhile justified the chaotic situation when authorities first issued an arrest warrant for the Australian whistleblower late on Friday night but then withdrew it the following day.
The Aftonbladet newspaper quoted Assange, 39, as saying he did not know who was "hiding behind" the claims, which came amid a stand-off with Washington over the website's publication of secret Afghan war documents.
Assange said he was shocked by the allegations against him and that he had never had sexual relations with anybody in a way that was not consensual, the tabloid said.
But he said that he had been warned previously that groups such as the Pentagon "could use dirty tricks" to destroy Wikileaks -- adding that he had been particularly warned against being entrapped by sexual scandals.
Maybe The Meatrix should have another video relating to Genetically Engineered Marijuana....
The Meatrix video
Genetically modified marjiuana
EXCERPT:
Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto’s best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year’s crop.
Cannibis culture
EXCERPT:
Monsanto's marijuana
The US-based Monsanto corporation became infamous last year when the public discovered that the huge pharmaceutical company was responsible for producing Agent Orange during the Vietnam war, for producing and selling Roundup to be sprayed on South American villages, for experimenting with dangerous genetically modified foods, and ? most recently ? for creating the dreaded "terminator" seed.
Terminator seeds are genetically engineered to produce a plant that will not produce viable seed, meaning that growers would be forced to go back to Monsanto each year to buy more seed stock to replant. Governments and public alike became wary of the concept when it was discovered that the terminator seed could possibly cross the species barrier, possibly spreading infertility among the plant kingdom like a disease.
Cannabis seeds from Monsanto are almost definitely genetically engineered. Genetically engineered plants can be patented, and it is in Monsanto's best interest to hold a patent on any seed they sell. Seed patents ensure that companies like Monsanto can continue to profit from seeds from year to year, as farmers are legally bound to buy patented seeds from the patent holder rather than simply store them from the last year's crop.
Pharmaceutical schwag
Interestingly, low-potency pot of the kind produced by Monsanto seeds at the University of Mississippi is exactly the kind of product the Ministry of Health is asking for from contractors. The guidelines ask specifically for "standardized marijuana cigarettes with THC content of between 4% and 6% and weighing [about] 850 mg."
Which means the cigarettes to be used for clinical trials will be phatties containing over three-quarters of a gram of schwag bud each! These fat joints will deliver about twice the tar per dose as marijuana currently available from experienced growers, which reaches between 8-10% THC.
The Health Canada document seems concerned that smoking can cause harm, and promises to explore other methods soon after the initial trials are run. Yet the product they choose to use is guaranteed to maximize the risks and problems associated with smoking. Could it be that the Ministry of Health is creating its own excuse not to use smoking as a delivery method?
Our anonymous source within the ministry assures us that the government plans to eventually only allow the use of inhalers, similar to asthma inhalers.
"The inhaler gets rid of any small industry that might develop, by regulating the delivery system. The other idea that didn't go through was to develop a seed system that would allow cultivars from across Canada which would then be grandfathered. What this means is that once the cultivated varieties were tested they would be introduced just the same as if they had been genetically modified."
Patented seeds and dose delivery methods could mean complete pharmaceutical control of medicinal cannabis sometime in the near future.
Ford's hemp car
Marijuana entrepreneur tries to trademark the word Ganja with copyright office scriptd
Proposition 19 Monsanto Terminator cannabis
EXCERPT:
PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND TERMINATOR CANNABIS
radicaljusticeman | September 9, 2010 - 2 days 15 hours in
* Guerrilla Radio
* Proposition 19 Drug Policy Alliance MPP NORML George Soros Monsanto Bayer GW Pharma HortaPharm GMO Terminator Cannabis
PROPOSITION 19, MONSANTO, AND TERMINATOR CANNABIS
An article by D.M. Murdock written in August 2010 and entitled “Why hemp could save the world” states:
“Hemps prohibition has led to untold suffering around the globe. If we—the global human population—had been able to grow the miracle plant hemp (Cannabis genus) locally and to use it for local industries and businesses, including and especially for fuel, we would never have needed to be addicted to oil, for one, an addiction that is at the root of much misery. We would never have allowed ourselves to be lorded over by international oil-mongers whose crimes against humanity have become legion, including wholesale invasion of other lands and slaughter of countless people.”
“None of this oil-related horror—along with the deplorable degradation of the environment globally—would have occurred if hemp had not been prohibited but had been used wisely and intelligently as a major foundation of human society. Indeed, hemp-based economies could still save the human world, while hemp planting could go a massively long way in rescuing the natural world as well.”
“It is said that hemp has up to 50,000 uses, from fiber to fuel to food, but I'll just provide a taste here:”
Free gifts
EXCERPT:
Cracking Down on Pharma Swag
Several medical centers are barring their doctors from accepting freebies like pens and lunches from any vendor. Here's why
As the medical industry is reassessing how physicians should disclose the shares of stock and other compensation they receive from health-care companies, another ethical question has sparked a wave of hand-wringing at academic medical centers across the U.S. Can a gift as seemingly worthless as a pen or a slice of pizza influence how doctors do their jobs? So far, the consensus answer seems to be yes.
WikiLeaks vs The Pentagon
U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks release: March 15, 2010
keywords: WikiLeaks, U.S. intelligence, U.S. Army, National Ground Intelligence Center, NGIC, classified, SECRET,
NOFORN
restraint: Classified SECRET/NOFORN (US)
title: Wikileaks.org - An Online Reference to Foreign Intelligence Services, Insurgents, Or Terrorist Groups?
date: March 18, 2008
group: United States Army Counterintelligence Center, Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch; Department
of Defence Intelligence Analysis Program
author: Michael D. Horvath
link: http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
pages: 32
Description
By Julian Assange (julian@wikileaks.org)
This document is a classifed (SECRET/NOFORN) 32 page U.S. counterintelligence investigation into WikiLeaks.
“The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the U.S. government are providing
sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot be ruled out”. It concocts a plan to fatally marginalize
the organization. Since WikiLeaks uses “trust as a center of gravity by protecting the anonymity and identity of the
insiders, leakers or whisteblowers”, the report recommends “The identification, exposure, termination of employment,
criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistlblowers could potentially damage
or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the Wikileaks.org Web site”.
[As two years have passed since the date of the report, with no WikiLeaks’ source exposed, it appears that this plan
was ineffective]. As an odd justificaton for the plan, the report claims that “Several foreign countries including China,
Israel, North Kora, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org website”.
The report provides further justification by enumerating embarrassing stories broken by WikiLeaks—U.S. equipment
expenditure in Iraq, probable U.S. violations of the Cemical Warfare Convention Treaty in Iraq, the battle over the
Iraqi town of Fallujah and human rights violations at Guantanmo Bay. Note that the report contains a number of
inaccurances, for instance, the claim that WikiLeaks has no editorial control. The report concludes with 13 items of
intelligence to be answered about WikiLeaks.
wikileaks.org
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 1 of 32
ACIC Home
(U) Wikileaks.org—An Online Reference to Foreign
Intelligence Services, Insurgents, or Terrorist Groups?
NGIC-2381-0617-08
Information Cutoff Date: 28 February 2008
Publication Date: 18 March 2008
National Security Information
Unauthorized Disclosure Subject to Criminal Sanctions
Derived from: Multiple sources
Declassify on: Source documents marked 25X1
Date of source: 20060725
This Counterintelligence Analysis Report is published under the auspices of the Department of
Defense Intelligence Analysis Program (DIAP).
Prepared by:
Michael D. Horvath
Cyber Counterintelligence Assessments Branch
Army Counterintelligence Center
External Coordination: National Ground Intelligence Center[1]
This product responds to HQ, Department of Army, production requirement C764-97-0005.
ACIC Product Identification Number is RB08-0617.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Purpose
(U) This special report assesses the counterintelligence threat posed to the US Army by the
Wikileaks.org Web site.
[Back to Table of Contents]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 2 of 32
(U) Executive Summary
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org, a publicly accessible Internet Web site, represents a potential force
protection, counterintelligence, operational security (OPSEC), and information security
(INFOSEC) threat to the US Army. The intentional or unintentional leaking and posting of US
Army sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org could result in increased threats to
DoD personnel, equipment, facilities, or installations. The leakage of sensitive and classified
DoD information also calls attention to the insider threat, when a person or persons motivated by
a particular cause or issue wittingly provides information to domestic or foreign personnel or
organizations to be published by the news media or on the Internet. Such information could be of
value to foreign intelligence and security services (FISS), foreign military forces, foreign
insurgents, and foreign terrorist groups for collecting information or for planning attacks against
US force, both within the United States and abroad.
(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole within DoD or elsewhere in the US
government is providing sensitive information or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot
be ruled out. Wikileaks.org claims that the ―leakers‖ or ―whistleblowers‖ of sensitive or
classified DoD documents are former US government employees. These claims are highly
suspect, however, since Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity and protection of the leakers or
whistleblowers is one of its primary goals. Referencing of leakers using codenames and
providing incorrect employment information, employment status, and other contradictory
information by Wikileaks.org are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures designed to protect
the identity of the current or former insiders who leaked the information. On the other hand, one
cannot rule out the possibility that some of the contradictions in describing leakers could be
inadvertent OPSEC errors by the authors, contributors, or Wikileaks.org staff personnel with
limited experience in protecting the identity of their sources.
(U) The stated intent of the Wikileaks.org Web site is to expose unethical practices, illegal
behavior, and wrongdoing within corrupt corporations and oppressive regimes in Asia, the
former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. To do so, the developers of the
Wikileaks.org Web site want to provide a secure forum to where leakers, contributors, or
whistleblowers from any country can anonymously post or send documentation and other
information that exposes corruption or wrongdoing by governments or corporations. The
developers believe that the disclosure of sensitive or classified information involving a foreign
government or corporation will eventually result in the increased accountability of a democratic,
oppressive, or corrupt the government to its citizens.[2]
(S//NF) Anyone can post information to the Wikileaks.org Web site, and there is no editorial
review or oversight to verify the accuracy of any information posted to the Web site. Persons
accessing the Web site can form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information
posted, and they are allowed to post comments. This raises the possibility that the Wikileaks.org
Web site could be used to post fabricated information; to post misinformation, disinformation,
and propaganda; or to conduct perception management and influence operations designed to
convey a negative message to those who view or retrieve information from the Web site.[3]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 3 of 32
(U) Diverse views exist among private persons, legal experts, advocates for open government
and accountability, law enforcement, and government officials in the United States and other
countries on the stated goals of Wikileaks.org. Some contend that the leaking and posting of
information on Wikileaks.org is constitutionally protected free speech, supports open society and
open government initiatives, and serves the greater public good in such a manner that outweighs
any illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business
information. Others believe that the Web site or persons associated with Wikileaks.org will face
legal challenges in some countries over privacy issues, revealing sensitive or classified
government information, or civil lawsuits for posting information that is wrong, false,
slanderous, libelous, or malicious in nature. For example, the Wikileaks.org Web site in the
United States was shutdown on 14 February 2008 for 2 weeks by court order over the publishing
of sensitive documents in a case involving charges of money laundering, grand larceny, and tax
evasion by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland. The court case against
Wikileaks.org was dropped by Julius Bare Bank, the US court order was lifted and the Web site
was restored in the United States. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel and
organizations to discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it wittingly allows
the posting of uncorroborated information, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front
organization of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).[4]
(S//NF) The governments of China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Thailand, Zimbabwe, and
several other countries have blocked access to Wikileaks.org-type Web sites, claimed they have
the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org and associated whistleblowers, or insisted
they remove false, sensitive, or classified government information, propaganda, or malicious
content from the Internet. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia claim the right to
remove objectionable content from, block access to, and investigate crimes related to the posting
of documents or comments to Web sites such as Wikileaks.org. The governments of these
countries most likely have the technical skills to take such action should they choose to do so.[5]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses trust as a center of gravity by assuring insiders, leakers, and
whistleblowers who pass information to Wikileaks.org personnel or who post information to the
Web site that they will remain anonymous. The identification, exposure, or termination of
employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers
could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make
such information public.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Key Judgments
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence,
OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army.
(S//NF) Recent unauthorized release of DoD sensitive and classified documents provide
FISS, foreign terrorist groups, insurgents, and other foreign adversaries with potentially
actionable information for targeting US forces.
(S//NF) The possibility that current employees or moles within DoD or elsewhere in the
US government are providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org cannot
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 4 of 32
be ruled out. The claim made by Wikileaks.org that former US government employees
leaked sensitive and classified information is highly suspect, however, since
Wikileaks.org states that the anonymity of the whistleblowers or leakers is one of its
primary goals.
(U//FOUO) The Wikileaks.org Web site could be used to post fabricated information,
misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda and could be used in perception
management and influence operations to convey a positive or negative message to
specific target audiences that view or retrieve information from the Web site.
(U//FOUO) Several countries have blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site and
claim the right to investigate and prosecute Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers
or to block access to or remove false, sensitive, or classified government information,
propaganda, or other malicious content from the Internet.
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org most likely has other DoD sensitive and classified information
in its possession and will continue to post the information to the Wikileaks.org Web site.
(U//FOUO) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org use trust as a center of gravity by protecting
the anonymity and identity of the insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers. The identification,
exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current
or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this
center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the
Wikileaks.org Web site.
(U) Table of Contents
(U) Purpose
(U) Executive Summary
(U) Key Judgments
(U) Background
(U) Discussion
(U) Intelligence Gaps
(U) Conclusions
(U) Point of Contact
(U) References
(U) Appendix A: Glossary
(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis of Leaked Tables of
Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
(U) Tables
(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216) Table of
Equipment (TOE)
(U) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by Wikileaks.org for
the NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004‖
[NGIC-1127-7138-06] posted on its Web site
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 5 of 32
(U) Figures
(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser
(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004‖ As Published in a Wikileaks.org Article.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Background
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians, and
technologists from the United States, China, Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Its
Web site became operational in early 2007. The advisory board for Wikileaks.org includes
journalists, cryptographers, a ―former US intelligence analyst,‖ and expatriates from Chinese,
Russian, and Tibetan refugee communities. The ACIC does not have any information to
associate or link the ―former US intelligence analyst‖ on the Wikileaks.org advisory board with
the leakage of sensitive or classified DoD documents posted to the Web site.[6]
(U) Wikileaks.org claims to have developed an uncensorable version of the publicly available
Wikipedia interface that is intended for mass leakage of sensitive documents that expose
wrongdoing and for allowing users to comment on the documents posted to the Web site.
Through its Web site, Wikileaks.org encourages large-scale anonymous leaking and posting of
sensitive and confidential government and business documents on the Internet. Wikileaks.org
claims to have received more than 1.2 million documents from dissident communities and
anonymous sources throughout the world. If true, additional articles involving sensitive or
classified DoD will most likely be posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site in the future.[7]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org uses its own coded software combined with Wiki, MediaWiki, OpenSSL,
FreeNet, TOR, and PGP to make it difficult for foreign governments, FISS, law enforcement
agencies, and foreign businesses to determine where a leaked document originated from and who
was responsible for leaking the document. The goal of Wikileaks.org is to ensure that leaked
information is distributed across many jurisdictions, organizations, and individual users because
once a leaked document is placed on the Internet it is extremely difficult to remove the document
entirely.[8]
(S//NF) The obscurification technology[9] used by Wikileaks.org has exploitable vulnerabilities.
Organizations with properly trained cyber technicians, the proper equipment, and the proper
technical software could most likely conduct computer network exploitation (CNE) operations or
use cyber tradecraft to obtain access to Wikileaks.org‘s Web site, information systems, or
networks that may assist in identifying those persons supplying the data and the means by which
they transmitted the data to Wikileaks.org. Forensic analysis of DoD unclassified and classified
networks may reveal the location of the information systems used to download the leaked
documents. The metadata, MD5 hash marks, and other unique identifying information within
digital documents may assist in identifying the parties responsible for leaking the information. In
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 6 of 32
addition, patterns involving the types of leaked information, classification levels of the leaked
information, development of psychological profiles, and inadvertent attribution of an insider
through poor OPSEC could also assist in the identification of insiders.
(U) Wikileaks.org supports the US Supreme Court ruling regarding the unauthorized release of
the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg, which stated that ―only a free and unrestrained press can
effectively expose deception in government.‖ The Wikileaks.org Web site further states the
following:
―We aim for maximum political impact. We believe that transparency in
government activities leads to reduced corruption, better government, and
stronger democracies. All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the
world community, as well as their own people. We believe this scrutiny requires
information. Historically that information has been costly—in terms of human life
and human rights. But with technological advances—the Internet, and
cryptography—the risks of conveying important information can be lowered.‖[10]
(U) The OPSEC measures used in the submission of leaked information to Wikileaks using the
Internet are designed to protect the identity and personal security of the persons or entities
sending or posting information to the Web site. Wikileaks.org claims that any attempt at trace
routing of IP addresses, MAC addresses, and other identifying information of a home computer
submissions (as opposed to cyber café submissions) through Wikileaks.org‘s Internet submission
system would require a knowledge of information available only to Wikileaks.org programmers
and to a rights organization serving the electronic community, or would require specialized
ubiquitous traffic analysis of Internet messages and routing systems. Nevertheless, it remains
technically feasible for FISS, law enforcement organizations, and foreign businesses that have
the motivation, intentions, capability, and opportunity to gain online access or physical access to
Wikileaks.org information systems to identify and trace whistleblowers through cyber
investigations, advanced cyber tools, and forensics.[11]
(U) Another method of posting leaked information to the Web site anonymously is for leakers to
use postal mail to send the information to volunteers in various countries who have agreed to
receive encrypted CDs and DVDs from leakers. These volunteers then forward the information
to designated personnel, who then upload the data on the CDs and DVDs to the Wikileaks.org
Web servers. To protect or mask the sender, leakers can take OPSEC measures such as using
Wikileaks.org encryption protocols when writing CDs and DVDs; using gloves while wrapping,
taping, handling, and mailing packages; and not including a return address or including a fake
return address on packages containing leaked information. Such measures are designed to protect
the identity of the leakers and prevent FISS, law enforcement, and postal inspectors from
intercepting the mail and decoding the information on the data storage devices in transit.
Wikileaks.org also claims that it is developing easy-to-use software to encrypt the CDs and
DVDs. Use of such methods also protects facilitators or intermediaries from harm because they
would not know the content of the encrypted submissions.[12]
(U) A Wikileaks.org spokesperson stated in early January 2007 that about 22 persons are
involved in the Open Society Initiative to make governments and corporations more accountable
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 7 of 32
to the citizens of the world. Wikileaks intends to seek funding from individual persons and
groups such as humanitarian organizations that fund sociopolitical activity intended to promote
democracy and human rights around the world through open access to government and business
information.[13]
(S//NF) Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and
Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site to prevent citizens
or adversaries from accessing sensitive information, embarrassing information, or alleged
propaganda. The governments of China, Israel, and Russia have asserted that they have a right to
remove from the Internet protected government information, disinformation, and propaganda that
is intended to embarrass or make false allegations against their governments. China, Israel, North
Korea, and Russia are assessed to have state-sponsored CNE, computer network attack (CNA),
and cyber forensics capabilities that would most likely allow penetration or disrupt viewing of
the Wikileaks.org Web site. China, Israel, and Russia have used or are suspected of having used
CNA to target terrorist or dissident Web sites that have posted objectionable material intended to
embarrass, harm, or encourage terrorism or opposition to the government.[14]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Discussion
(U//FOUO) An insider could present a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, or
INFOSEC threat to the US Army through deliberate unauthorized release of official DoD
documents and posting of sensitive or classified information to the Internet. Several recent
postings to the Wikileaks.org Web site in November 2007 of sensitive US Army information
marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY and in December 2007 of US Army
information classified SECRET//NOFORN highlight the insider threat to DoD. The actual
perpetrators responsible for the unauthorized released of such documents could be subject to
administrative action, nonjudicial punishment, or criminal charges and prosecution if they are
identified.
(U) Wikileaks.org Analysis of US Army Tables of Equipment in Iraq and
Afghanistan from April 2007
(U) Wikileaks.org specifically cited 2,000 pages of leaked US Army documents with information
on the Tables of Equipment (TOEs) for US and Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as a
perfect example of the sort of information that would benefit from a global analysis. These
documents provided information on the US forces, a description of equipment and total number
of equipment that were assigned to actual military units assigned to US Central Command in
April 2007. Wikileaks.org staff members and various authors and contributors have written
numerous news articles and posted the raw data in spreadsheets or Structured Query Language
(SQL) data base so anyone can examine the information, conduct research, comment upon,
discuss the various units, see the items of equipment, see what they do, and draw their own
conclusions about the strategic, political, military, and human rights significance of the
information.[15]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 8 of 32
(U//FOUO) Table 1 below is an abbreviated sample of information contained in a leaked digital
database document or spreadsheets available on the Wikileaks.org Web site:
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Table 1. Abbreviated Listing of the Iraq Transition Team (UIC - M94216)
Table of Equipment (TOE). [16]
UIC LIN NSN Item Name PBIC Type DND Qnty
M94216 72045Z 581001X111125 WARLOCK GREEN, ECM:
GREEN EDO CO
V TPE N 15
M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED
EDO COMM &
T TPE N 2
M94216 72113Z 581001X111126 WARLOCK RED, ECM: RED
EDO COMM &
V TPE N 13
M94216 B67766 1.24001E+12 BINOCULA MOD CN M22 N TPE N 9
M94216 E63317 6.60501E+12 COMPAS MAGNETIC UNMTD P TPE N 3
M94216 J03261 5.85501E+12 ILLUMI INFR AN/PEQ-2A P TPE N 6
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 4
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 8
M94216 J85705 8.47002E+12 INSERTS,ENHANCED SM N TPE N 49
M94216 L91975 1.005E+12 MG 50 M2 HB FL GD/VEH P TPE N 3
M94216 L92352 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240 N TPE N 2
M94216 M09009 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 5.56MM M249 P TPE N 3
M94216 M74823 1.01001E+12 MT MACH GUN MK64 MOD9 T TPE N 1
M94216 M75577 1.005E+12 MT TPD MG CAL .50 M3 P TPE N 1
M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B N TPE N 2
M94216 M92841 1.00501E+12 MACH GUN 7.62MM M240B T TPE N 2
M94216 N05482 5.85501E+12 NIGHT VIS G AN/PVS-7B P TPE N 8
M94216 T92446 2.32001E+12 TRK UTIL HMMWV M1114 T TPE N 1
M94216 W95537 2.33001E+12 TRL CGO 3/4T M101 2WH T TPE N 3
M94216 YF2014 232001C043031 HMMWV M1114: W/ OFK5 T TPE N 2
M94216 YF2049 2.32001E+12 TRUCK,UTILITY-(M1116) T TPE N 1
Legend:
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 9 of 32
UIC – Unit Identification Code, a six-character, alphanumeric code that uniquely identifies each
Active, Reserve, and National Guard unit of the US Armed Forces.
LIN – Line Item Number for equipment.
NSN – NATO Stock Number, a standardized stack identification number for supplies and
equipment within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
Item Name - Brief description of the equipment.
PBIC – Property Book Identification Code, which categorizes the type of property listed into one
of 10 categories.
Type (of equipment):
TPE – Theater Provided Equipment; specific equipment that is provided by the
Theater of Operations such as CENTCOM to perform the mission based on the
unique operating environment
LTT – Long Term Training; equipment need for long term training or
deployment.
APS – Army Prepositioned Stock; equipment drawn by a unit that is already
prepositioned in the Theater of Operations.
DND – Do Not Deploy; this field is a Yes/No column that lists equipment that remains at the
home station and is not deployed with the unit when sent overseas.
OH Qty – On-hand Quantity is the number of item of equipment that is currently available to the
unit; it does not necessarily represent the actual required number needed by the unit to be fully
mission capable.[17]
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICAL USE ONLY
(S//NF) The foreign staff writer for Wikileaks.org, Julian Assange, wrote several news articles,
coauthored other articles, and developed an interactive data base for the leaked documents. In
addition, other Wikileaks.org writers and various writers for other media publications wrote
separate news articles based on the leaked information posted to the Web site. Assange and his
coauthors claim that the 2,000 pages of leaked US military information provides unit names,
organizational structure, and tables of equipment (TOEs) for the US Army in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They also claimed that unidentified persons within the US government leaked the
information to facilitate action by the US Congress to force the withdrawal of US troops by
cutting off funding for the war.[18]
(U//FOUO) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers purport that the leaked sensitive TOE
information reveals the following:
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 10 of 32
Secretive US document exploitation centers.
Detainee operations and alleged human rights violations.
Information on the US State Department, US Air Force, US Navy and US Marines units,
Iraqi police and coalition forces from Poland, Denmark, Ukraine, Latvia, Slovakia,
Romania, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and El Salvador serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nearly the entire order of battle for US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as of April 2007.
Alleged revelations that the US government violated the Chemical Weapons Convention
in Iraq and Afghanistan.[19]
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org encouraged persons to comment on the leaked Army documents and
explained how the catalogued information and cross-referenced databases could be used by other
researchers or journalists to prepare reports or assessments. According to Wikileaks.org, the
information posted can be used to prepare objective new reports. Conversely, this same
information could be manipulated to prepare biased news reports or be used for conducting
propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, perception management, or influence operations
against the US Army by a variety of domestic and foreign actors. [20]
(U) Assange and other Wikileaks.org writers developed and applied a specific methodology for
examining and analyzing the leaked TOE information, a methodology they then placed online to
assist others in conducting their own research. See Appendix B. They also provided links to
associated online reference material. The methodology used by Assange and other authors for the
analysis of leaked tables of equipment for US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan both a SQLite
database is described in Appendix B.
(S//NF) The TOEs for US Army units deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq in April 2007 provide a
wealth of information that could be used by FISS, foreign terrorist groups, and Iraqi insurgents to
identify unit capabilities and vulnerabilities that could assist in conducting attacks against camps,
convoys, and other targets. The information can also be compared with other publicly available
databases to develop extensive order of battle files of vehicle types, communications and
jamming equipment, information systems, and weapons systems, files that could be used to
determine the capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities of the organic equipment assigned to
military units. Such information could aid enemy forces in planning terrorist attacks, selecting
the most effective type and emplacement of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), building
triggering devices to defeat countermeasures organic to friendly units, and selecting the most
effective direct and indirect weapons systems for conducting physical attacks against targets such
as military units, convoys, and base camps.
(U) One Wikileaks.org news article also discusses the use of IEDs by foreign terrorists and
insurgent groups and claims that the IED threat has resulted in a shift in DoD funding priorities,
similar to the Manhattan Project to develop atomic weapons in World War II, for current
research, development and fielding of IED countermeasures through the Joint IED Defeat
Organization. In addition, the author of the article attempts to provide a cost-to-benefit analysis
of these IED tactics and countermeasures. The author claims that the leaked information reveals
that 12,097 Warlock, Counter RCIED (Remote-controlled Improvised Explosive Device)
Electronic Warfare (CREW), systems are in Iraq and that the purpose of the Warlock is to jam
radio signals from devices such as mobile phones to prevent such signals from detonating IEDs.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 11 of 32
The author claimed that 7,530 systems used in Iraq were purchased at a cost of $1.1 billion. No
claim was made regarding the cost of remaining 4,567 systems.
(S//NF) The author of the above-mentioned article incorrectly interprets the leaked data
regarding the components and fielding of the Warlock system, resulting in unsupportable and
faulty conclusions to allege war profiteering, price gouging and increased revenues by DoD
contractors involved in counter-IED development efforts. This article provides an example of
how the leaked TOE information can be manipulated and misinterpreted to produce inaccurate
information for a news article.
(S//NF) The author of the article then argues that the US Army receives a poor return on its
investment in counter-IEDs. The following excerpt from the article could be used by adversaries
in potential propaganda or influence operations:
If we view IEDs as a rebel investment, to which the United States must pay
dividends in defensive equipment costs, then every insurgent dollar spent has a
return on investment of somewhere around a thousand fold. Significant price
gouging by counter-IED defense contractors is evident. For comparison, each
briefcase-sized ―Warlock‖ IED jammer, of which is there is on average more than
one per vehicle, is worth $150,000; however, as can be seen by this analysis that
is more costly than nearly every vehicle it was designed to protect. The
―Warlock‖ producer, a DoD defense contractor [name redacted], predicts
financial year 2007 will see a 400 percent total revenue increase over its 2003
levels.[21]
(S//NF) Intelligence indicates that insurgents in Afghanistan have recovered several Warlock
systems.[22] It is possible that Warlock systems captured in Afghanistan were sent to Iran for
reverse engineering and for use in developing countermeasures to Warlock.
(S//NF) Were a Warlock system successfully reversed engineered or countermeasures
successfully developed by foreign terrorists, insurgents, or the Iranian government, US and
Coalition forces would be at greater risk of RCIED attacks, especially those units equipped with
Warlock systems similar to those that had been captured and exploited. It is also possible that
any countermeasures developed to defeat the Warlock system would be provided to the Jaysh al-
Mahdi (JAM) and other anti-US insurgent or terrorist groups operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The TOEs could be used to identify and target specific units equipped with the same type of
Warlock systems for which countermeasures had been developed.
(U) The Wikileaks.org authors believe that the leaked documents list Army equipment held by
the US Army, Marines, Air Force, Coalition, and possibly CIA units in Iraq and Afghanistan as
of April 2007. The authors stated that the data only includes items registered with battle planning
systems for logistics and appears to cover most valuable major end items of equipment. The data,
according to the authors, does not include soldiers‘ combat pay, transportation, research and
development, and home station costs of the soldiers, nor does it include most supplies,
ammunition, and other disposable equipment and consumable items.[23]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 12 of 32
(U) Wikileaks.org staff personnel allegedly wrote a script or computer program to cross
reference each item in the leaked document with NSNs gleaned from public US logistics
equipment price catalogs from the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). The authors claim that
$1.112 billion worth of US Army-managed military equipment in Afghanistan is listed in the
leaked documents. The author believed the actual total value of the equipment to be several times
higher.[24]
(U) The spreadsheets and list contains codes to identify military units, supply item codes, and
other logistics data. The authors believed that the most useful data field for investigatory
purposes was the NSN. The authors found several Internet sites that allow public searches of the
NSNs, and this information was merged with the TOE into the SQL-generated database on the
Web site. For example, the author specifically mentioned NSN catalogues that are publicly
available on the Internet from the DLA.[25] The DLA Web site identifies many items on the
spreadsheets and includes prices that were merged into the database and used to generate the
estimate for the total value of the equipment.[26]
(U//FOUO) Julian Assange also stated in his news articles involving the TOE information that
persons were welcome to assist in the following future actions and areas of research involving
the equipment listings:
A computer program would be written to expand the military unit abbreviations (for
example, HHC—Headquarters and Headquarters Company) to make is easier for users to
visually analyze entries in the database.
Make further comments on military units in the list and their significance. The entries
would be cross linked with available news sources.
Make further comments on equipment items in the list and their significance.
Expand and improve links and other information for US war-funding legislation and bills.
Attempt to answer questions on specific issues with NSN codes. The authors stated that
the NSNs are a 13-digit code. Of those 13 digits, 12 are numeric. The seventh is
alphanumeric, and the publicly searchable NSN database seems to be able to locate items
if they have a number in the seventh place, but, not if there is a letter in the seventh place.
They ask the following questions: 1) What is the significance for this alphanumeric
character in the seventh position? 2) What does a letter as opposed to a number signify?
3) Is there a more complete public database for NSN codes than the one given? 4) Are
these alphanumeric NSNs Management Control Numbers as speculated?
Create an interactive database browser.[27]
(U) Julian Assange and other Wikileaks.org authors continually encourage other persons with an
interest in the information to comment on their work or conduct their own research and publish
the results on Wikileaks.org.
(U) Alleged Violations of the Chemical Warfare Convention Treaty by US
Military in Iraq and Afghanistan
(U) On 9 November 2007, Wikileaks.org published an exclusive investigative report claiming
that the United States ―had almost certainly violated the Chemical Weapons Convention‖
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 13 of 32
(CWC), as originally drafted by the United Kingdom in 1997. The author, Julian Assange,
claimed the deployment of CS (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile also called Chlorobenzylidene
Malononitrile) munitions and dispensing equipment and weapons capable of firing CS gas by the
United States was a violation of the CWC. The author also claimed the United States had at least
2,386 low-grade chemical weapons deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. These items also appeared
in the 2,000-page listing of nearly one million items of US military equipment deployed in Iraq
and leaked to Wikileaks.org. The items are labeled under the military‘s own NATO supply
classification for chemical weapons and equipment.[28]
(U) Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Defense Department released an official statement
that President Bush had authorized US military forces to use riot control agents (RCAs) such as
tear gas or CS gas. See Figure 1. The Defense Department stated that tear gas or CS gas, which
was issued to US troops, would be used only to save civilian lives and in accordance with the
CWC, as amended and ratified by the United States. Some chemical weapons experts in the
United States and other countries expressed the belief that this 2003 authorization might violate
the CWC treaty. These domestic and foreign critics expressed the belief that any battlefield use
of tear gas would violate the CWC; offend crucial allies, including the United Kingdom and
Australia. In addition, the critics claimed that the usage of CS would provide the Iraqi leader,
Saddam Hussein, a pretext for using chemical weapons against the United States and coalition
forces.[29]
UNCLASSIFIED
(U) Figure 1. M33A1 Bulk CS Chemical Dispenser.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U//FOUO) In the report published on Wikileaks.org, the author claimed that any use of
chemical weapons such as CS gas for military operations is illegal. The Chemical Weapons
Convention of 1997, drafted by the United Kingdom declares ―Each State Party undertakes not
to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.‖ It only grants permissible use to ―law
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 14 of 32
enforcement including domestic riot control.‖ The authors used this interpretation of the CWC
drafted by the United Kingdom to make the allegation that the United States had violated the
treaty. [30]
(U//FOUO) It must be noted, that US policy as stated in Executive Order No. 11850, 8 April
1975, Renunciation of Certain Uses in War of Chemical Herbicides and Riot Control Agents,
renounced first use of herbicides in war (except for specified defensive uses) and first use of
RCAs in war except for defensive military modes to save lives. In ratifying the CWC, the US
Senate wrote an amendment into its resolution approving the CWC that stated United States‘
interpretation of how RCAs might be used for specific defensive purposes, as specified by the
1975 Executive Order.[31]
(U) Such varying interpretations reflect a deliberate ambiguity in the CWC, which states that
―riot-control agents may not be used as a method of warfare.‖ The original CWC and modified
CWC approved by the US Senate, however, does not define this phrase ―method of warfare.‖
The actual version of the CWC passed by the US Senate was not considered by the authors of the
report. The CWC ratified by the US Senate list exceptions in the usage of RCAs for US military
forces that are not considered by the US government to be in violation of the CWC.[32]
(U) In the same report, the authors claimed that the use of white phosphorus by the US military
during the 2004 assault on Fallujah, Iraq, should also be considered a violation of the CWC. The
authors noted, however, that the US Army claimed usage of white phosphorous as ―a smoke
screen‖ and ―an incendiary‖ in the Fallujah operation, and that this usage is not technically
covered by the CWC.
(U) Alleged Human Rights Violations Related to Joint Task Force–Guantanamo
Standard Operating Procedures
(U//FOUO) Another example of leaked information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site on or
about 7 November 2007 is an outdated copy of the Joint Task Force–Guantanamo, Camp Delta
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) marked as UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO, signed by MG
Miller and dated 28 March 2003. A news article written by Wikileaks.org staff writers, also
posted on 7 November 2007, claims the SOP exposes systematic methods for preventing illegal
combatants and detained prisoners incarcerated at Joint Task Force–Guantanamo facilities at
Camp Delta from meeting with the International Red Cross, as well as the use of extreme
psychological stress as a means of torture against detainees. The unauthorized release of the SOP
has prompted authors posting to the Wikileaks.org Web site to claim that the document proves
the US Army was torturing and violating the human rights of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.
This SOP was also the subject of a lawsuit by international human rights groups and a domestic
civil rights organization requesting the release of the document under the US Freedom of
Information Act.[33]
(U) The author claimed that subsequent US military statements including a DoD spokesperson,
to Reuters News Service and the Miami Herald confirm the veracity of the JTF SOP document.
On Wednesday, 14 November 2007, a week after the SOP was posted to Web site, Wikileaks.org
claimed that it received an e-mail message from the ―Pentagon‖ (DoD) demanding that the
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 15 of 32
documents posted to the Web site be censored and removed from the Web site. The actual
wording of the DoD e-mail message sent to Wikileaks.org requested that the document be
removed from the Web site and that the procedures under the Freedom of Information Act be
used to request release of the SOP.[34]
(U) Leakage of Classified Information to Wikileaks.org
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org also posted a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC),
classified SECRET//NOFORN, entitled ― (U) Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April
2004,” (NGIC-1127-7138-06). The NGIC report was the second in a series of reports that
analyzed recent warfare in complex environments such as urban environments. See Figure 2.
The NGIC report discusses enemy use of asymmetric tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP)
during the Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 and offers many useful lessons learned regarding how
a relatively weak adversary can prevent the United States from accomplishing its military
objectives. Wikileaks.org claims the document was leaked by a source it refers to as ―Peryton,‖
who is described as a former employee of NGIC. Both a copy of the actual NGIC classified
report (in PDF) and the Wikileaks.org news article were posted on the Wikileaks.org Web site. A
variety of newspapers, wire services, and other news and media organizations wrote numerous
articles based on the original Wikileaks.org news article and actual classified document posted to
their Web site.[35]
(S//NF) The possibility that a current employee or mole may exist within DoD or elsewhere in
the US government who is actively providing sensitive or classified information to Wikileaks.org
cannot be ruled out. Nevertheless, the claim that the leaker is a former NGIC employee is highly
suspect, since Wikileaks.org claims that the protection of the anonymity of the ―whistleblower‖
or ―leaker‖ is one of its primary concerns. In addition, this claim could simply be a crude attempt
to mislead investigations into who leaked the document. Use of a code name, incorrect
employment information, or incorrect status are most likely rudimentary OPSEC measures
designed to protect the identity of the current or former ―insider‖ who leaked the information. In
addition, usage of present and past verb tenses and other contradictions in referencing ―Peryton‖
by the Wikileaks author and staff personnel are most likely part of a deliberate deception, but
one cannot completely rule out the possibility that some of these contradictions could be
inadvertent OPSEC errors made by authors lacking experience in protecting their methods or
sources.
(S//NF) Unclassified e-mail addresses and work telephone numbers of the authors and other
persons referenced in the NGIC report were listed in the NGIC document, thus making them
available to members of the news media attempting to verify the leaked information.
Wikileaks.org and some other news organizations did attempt to contact the NGIC personnel by
e-mail or telephone to verify the information. Such efforts by Wikileaks.org to verify the
information are in contravention to its stated policy not to attempt to verify the information it
receives from its sources. Wikileaks.org went forward with publishing their news article based
on the classified NGIC report although they did not receive a response to their inquiry. This is of
interest because some journalists exploit the lack of a response to their inquiries by implying that
a refusal to respond, failure to respond to a FOIA request, or failure to verify or receive other
information presumes that those failing to respond have something to hide. This further weakens
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 16 of 32
the claim that an alleged former NGIC employee leaked the information and strengthens other
possibilities. A former NGIC employee would be regarded by many as a highly credible source
and either taken at his or her word or asked to provide other bona fides to verify the employment
claim. Given the high visibility and publicity associated with publishing this classified report by
Wikileaks.org, however, attempts to verify the information were prudent and show journalist
responsibility to the newsworthiness or fair use of the classified document if they are
investigated or challenged in court.[36]
SECRET//NOFORN
(U) The following is a description of the map and explanation of the classification markings
provided in the Wikileaks.org article: ―Map from page four of the leaked report on the failed 2004
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 17 of 32
assault on the Iraqi town of Fallujah, which is situated 40 miles from Baghdad. The report is
classified SECRET/NOFORN. NOFORN means do not share with US allies such as the UK,
Australia, and Canada. 20310603 is date after which 25 years have elapsed and the document would
normally be declassified. X1 specifies that the document is exempt from declassification.‖
(S//NF) Figure 2. Map from Page 4 of NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004” As Published in a Wikileaks.org
Article.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(S//NF) The author on the Wikileaks.org staff published the article using selected excerpts and
used information that was out of context from the actual NGIC report. The article intertwined
classified information from the NGIC report and information gleaned from other news articles in
the open media to strengthen its portrayal of the coalition offensive operations in Fallujah in
2004 as a military and political defeat for the United States. The leakage of this NGIC report
could allow anti-Coalition forces to portray themselves as victors because they successfully
manipulated the media coverage in the April 2004 battle to divide the coalition forces politically
and force a halt to the offensive operations. The leaked report could also provide foreign
governments, terrorists, and insurgents with insight into successful asymmetric warfare tactics,
techniques, and procedures that could be used when engaging US or Coalition forces and provide
insight into effective media, information, or influence operations that could be used to defeat a
superior enemy.[37]
(U) The catalogue, indexing and filing entry on the Wikileaks.org Web site for the leaked NGIC
document is in Table 2, below. This is the information as posted on the Wikileaks.org Web site.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(S//NF) Table 2. Descriptive Entry of the File and How it is Catalogued by
Wikileaks.org for the NGIC Report Entitled ―(U) Complex Environments: Battle
of Fallujah I, April 2004” [NGIC-1127-7138-06], as Posted on its Web Site.[38]
File fallujah.pdf (click to view file)
Analysis Al Jazeera and Abu Ghraib scuttled US war in Fallujah
Summary Classified 2006 SECRET//NOFORN report by the US Army National Ground
Intelligence Center. ―Enemy employment of asymmetric tactics, techniques,
and procedures (TTP) during the Battle of Fallujah in April 2004 offers many
useful lessons learned in how a relatively weak adversary can prevent the
United States from accomplishing its military objectives.‖
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 18 of 32
File Size 280144K
File Info PDF document, version 1.4
File Identity SHA256
28d7b0d27805749db32f38088c9ecbb963d4564877e723930cf44d8d0c6c7c8e
Wikileaks release 2007-12-24
Country United States
Organization US Army National Ground Intelligence Center
Organization
type
Military or intelligence (ruling)
Submitted by Peryton [ACIC comment: this is the code name given by Wikileaks.org to the
leaker(s) of the information.]
SECRET//NOFORN
(U) Technical Skills and Abilities
(S//NF) Wikileaks.org developers and technical personnel appear to demonstrate a high level of
sophistication in their efforts to provide a secure operating environment for whistleblowers
desiring to post information to the Web site. They currently use a variety of indigenously
modified free software to build the Web site and route and secure the transmission of data to
Wikileaks.org.
(S//NF) The construction of a SQL database, the merging of leaked documents, and use of
publicly available tools to glean information from the Web sites of various DoD and private
organizations such as globalsecurity.org and then make the information available in a searchable
format, allowing access to and manipulation of the data and information for research purposes by
users of Wikileaks.org, demonstrate a high level of technical capability and resourcefulness.
(S//NF) The current and future intent of the Wikileaks.org staff and writers is to continue
development of enhanced tools for the manipulation of the 2,000 pages of information on US
forces by visitors to the Web site. Future efforts may include expanding the use of encryption,
operational cyber tradecraft, and physical tradecraft in the delivery and transmission of leaked
information for posting to the Wikileaks.org Web site. It is highly likely that transmission
security will improve as new technology, the technical skills of current members, or new funding
sources allow. The purchase of more secure equipment, transmission means, and encryption
protocols is possible if additional financial resources are made available to the organization.
(U) Is it Free Speech or Illegal Speech?
(U//FOUO) Wikileaks.org allows anonymous publication of information and records without
oversight or accountability; anyone can post information to the Web site, and there is no editorial
review, fact checking, or oversight of the posted information. Persons accessing the Web site are
encouraged to form their own opinions regarding the accuracy of the information and are
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 19 of 32
allowed to post their own comments. This open policy of posting information and providing
commentary could create multiple legal issues for Wikileaks.org that could subject members to
legal prosecution or civil issues by foreign governments, businesses, and individual
complainants. In addition, some governments may contend that accessing the Web site itself is a
crime, and that shutting down or blocking access to the Web site is a reasonable countermeasure
to prevent viewing or downloading of objectionable content. This situation raises the possibility
that the Wikileaks.org Web site could be deliberately used to post fabricated information; to post
misinformation, disinformation, or propaganda; or to conduct perception management and
influence operations designed to convey a negative message to specific audiences.
(U) Diverse views exist within the United States and other countries regarding the stated goals of
Wikileaks.org. Some believe that the leaking and posting of information is constitutionally
protected free speech and supports freedom of the press, open-society initiatives, and
government accountability, and that leaking the information serves the greater good versus any
illegal acts that arise from the posting of sensitive or classified government or business
information. Others believe that Wikileaks.org or individual persons associated with
Wikileaks.org will face legal challenges in some countries regarding the privacy of individuals
and businesses, the revelation of sensitive or classified government information, or the posting of
information that is allegedly wrong, false, slanderous, or libelous. Several foreign companies
have already filed civil lawsuits in the United States and the United Kingdom for data theft, libel,
and damage to their business reputation for the posting of internal and proprietary company
information to the Wikileaks.org Web site. The Wikileaks.org Web site was temporarily
shutdown in late February 2008 for 2 weeks in the United States by court order over the
publication of sensitive documents in a case involving a potential money laundering, grand
larceny, and tax evasion charges by the Julius Bare Bank in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.
Julius Bare Bank decided to drop the court case against Wikileaks.org in US courts. The US
court order was lifted and the Web site was restored in the United States.
(U) In addition, several prominent bloggers have questioned the usage and reliability of the
security of the software used to develop the Web site and to protect communications and
identities of leakers. The motives and methods of the Wikileaks.org developers and members
have been questioned, and several bloggers believe that other Internet forums exist that served
the same function in a more ethical manner. Efforts by some domestic and foreign personnel to
discredit the Wikileaks.org Web site include allegations that it allows uncorroborated
information to be posted, serves as an instrument of propaganda, and is a front organization for
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Wikileaks.org denies these accusations, and no evidence
has been presented to support such assertions.[39]
(U//FOUO) Questions and concerns have been raised by media consultants, ethics experts, and
other journalists regarding the status of Wikileaks.org as a news organization and of its staff
writers as journalists. The contention by some is that Wikileaks.org does not qualify as a news
organization and thus its staff writers are not journalists. Wikileaks.org‘s desire to expose alleged
wrongdoing by revealing sensitive or classified government or business information, in effect,
encourages the theft of sensitive or classified proprietary information or intellectual property. In
doing so, some argue, Wikileaks.org is knowingly encouraging criminal activities such as the
theft of data, documents, proprietary information, and intellectual property, possible violation of
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 20 of 32
national security laws regarding sedition and espionage, and possible violation of civil laws.
Within the United States and foreign countries the alleged ―whistleblowers‖ are, in effect,
wittingly violating laws and conditions of employment and thus may not qualify as
―whistleblowers‖ protected from disciplinary action or retaliation for reporting wrongdoing in
countries that have such laws. Also, the encouragement and receipt of stolen information or data
is not considered to be an ethical journalistic practice. In addition, the sources of Wikileaks.org
staff writers are not verified, nor are its news articles fact-checked or confirmed by additional
sources, as customary in news organizations. Moreover, there is no editorial review of the
articles prior to publication. Finally, some critics contend that the staff writers are biased and
have made unsupportable claims to support political agendas to effect change in government or
business policy.[40]
(U) Several countries have complained publicly or blocked access to Wikileaks.org and similar
Web sites and have asserted claims that they have the right to investigate and prosecute
Wikileaks.org members and whistleblowers. In addition, several countries also claim the right to
remove false information, sensitive or classified government information, propaganda, or other
malicious content from the Internet. As a result, Wikileaks.org members have already posted
information in China on how to circumvent blocks to the Web site imposed by the Chinese
government for having objectionable content related to the participation of Chinese dissents in
Wkileaks.org and to pro-democracy issues. [41]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Intelligence Gaps
(S//NF) What individual persons or entities are leaking DoD sensitive or classified
information to Wikileaks.org, and are they working on behalf of a foreign agent or
power? What are the reasons, intentions, and motivations of the current or former
insider?
(S//NF) Is the potential insider leaking the information to Wikileaks.org a former
employee of the US government or a mole still working for the US government? How is
the insider sending digital information to Wikileaks.org? What cyber or other tradecraft is
the perpetrator using?
(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services,
foreign insurgents, or terrorist groups to collect sensitive or classified US Army
information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site?
(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used by FISS, foreign military services, or
foreign terrorist groups to spread propaganda, misinformation, or disinformation or to
conduct perception or influence operations to discredit the US Army?
(S//NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site be used for operational or cyber tradecraft to
pass information to or from foreign entities?
(S/NF) Will the Wikileaks.org Web site developers obtain new software for Web site
development, management, security, encryption of messages or files, or posting
anonymous information to the Web site?
(S//NF) From what foreign personnel or groups does Wikileaks.org receive funding or
collaborate with for sharing information or development of new software?
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 21 of 32
(S//NF) Will foreign entities attempt to conduct CNE or CNA to obtain information on
the posters of information or block content on the Wikileaks.org Web site?
(S//NF) What software, tactics, techniques, and procedures would be used by a foreign
actor to conduct CNE or CNA against the Web site?
(S//NF) Will foreign persons, businesses, or countries attempt civil lawsuits or criminally
prosecute whistleblowers, Wikileaks.org staff, and members who posted comments on
the Web site?
(S//NF) Will Wikileaks.org and various users expand the data fields in the TOE SQL
database to include equipment capabilities, equipment limitations and vulnerabilities,
known unit locations, links to geospatial information services, or known unit personnel to
develop ―battle books‖ for targeting packages?
(S//NF) What other leaked DoD sensitive or classified information has been obtained by
Wikileaks.org?
(S//NF) Will foreign organizations such as FISS, foreign military services, foreign
insurgents, or terrorist groups provide funding or material support to Wikileaks.org?
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Conclusions
(S//NF) Web sites such as Wikileaks.org have trust as their most important center of gravity by
protecting the anonymity and identity of the insider, leaker, or whistleblower. Successful
identification, prosecution, termination of employment, and exposure of persons leaking the
information by the governments and businesses affected by information posted to Wikileaks.org
would damage and potentially destroy this center of gravity and deter others from taking similar
actions.
(U//FOUO) The unauthorized release of DoD information to Wikileaks.org highlights the need
for strong counterintelligence, antiterrorism, force protection, information assurance, INFOSEC,
and OPSEC programs to train Army personnel on the proper procedures for protecting sensitive
or classified information, to understand the insider threat, and to report suspicious activities. In
addition, personnel need to know proper procedures for reporting the loss, theft, or comprise of
hard or soft copy documents with sensitive information or classified information to the
appropriate unit, law enforcement, or counterintelligence personnel. Unfortunately, such
programs will not deter insiders from following what they believe is their obligation to expose
alleged wrongdoing within DoD through inappropriate venues. Persons engaged in such activity
already know how to properly handle and secure sensitive or classified information from these
various security and education programs and has chosen to flout them.
(S//NF) It must be presumed that Wikileaks.org has or will receive sensitive or classified DoD
documents in the future. This information will be published and analyzed over time by a variety
of personnel and organizations with the goal of influencing US policy. In addition, it must also
be presumed that foreign adversaries will review and assess any DoD sensitive or classified
information posted to the Wikileaks.org Web site. Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will
continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection,
counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 22 of 32
Sensitive or classified information posted to Wikileaks.org could potentially reveal the
capabilities and vulnerabilities of US forces, whether stationed in CONUS or deployed overseas.
(S//NF) The proliferation of access to Internet, computer, and information technology technical
skills, software, tools, and databases will allow the rapid development, merging, integration, and
manipulation of diverse documents, spreadsheets, multiple databases, and other publicly
available or leaked information. Possible enhancements could increase the risk to US forces and
could potentially provide potential attackers with sufficient information to plan conventional or
terrorist attacks in locations such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
(S//NF) The various open or freeware applications used in the development and management of
Wikileaks.org continue to improve with time. Several Internet software development companies,
foundations, electronic privacy organizations, database management services, encryption
developers, and anonymous e-mail services can generate sufficient income, accept donations,
and use volunteers to continue to develop and improve the software. Improvements in these
software applications will provide greater privacy and anonymity of persons who leak
information to Wikileaks.org.
(S//NF) The possibility that various computer experts, researchers, and users could expand the
data fields in the TOE SQL database to include pictures; equipment capabilities, limitations and
vulnerabilities; known unit locations; links to geospatial information; and known unit personnel
cannot be ruled out. The continued development of new technologies for merging and integrating
various geographic or other information services into easy-to-use databases could allow rapid
compilation of unit profiles that could be used for developing actionable information for use by
FISS, foreign terrorist organizations, and other potential adversaries for intelligence collection,
planning, or targeting purposes.[42]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Point of Contact
(U) This special report was produced by the Army Counterintelligence Center (ACIC). ACIC
POC is Michael D. Horvath, Senior Analyst, Cyber CI Assessments Branch, commercial, 301-
677-2489 or DSN 622-2489.
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) Appendix A: Glossary
(U) FreeNet (or Freenet). Freenet is a decentralized and censorship-resistant distributed data
storage system. Freenet aims to provide freedom of speech through a peer-to-peer network with
strong protection of anonymity. Freenet pools contributed bandwidth and storage space of
member computers in the network to allow users to anonymously publish or retrieve various
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 23 of 32
kinds of data or information. The storage space is distributed among all connected nodes on
Freenet.[43]
(U) Google Earth. Google Earth is a geographic information system (GIS) using the Google
search engine that permits interactive viewing of digital satellite imagery, maps, terrain, and 3D
buildings.[44]
(U) MediaWiki. Wikipedia runs on its own in-house-created software, known as MediaWiki, a
powerful, open-source wiki system written in PHP and built upon MySQL. As well as allowing
articles to be written, it includes a basic internal macro language, variables, transcluded
templating system for page enhancement, and features such as redirection.[45]
(U) OpenSSL. The OpenSSL Project is a collaborative effort to develop an easy-to-use Open
Source toolkit implementing the Secure Sockets Layer and Transport Layer Security protocols
with encryption. The project is managed by a worldwide community of volunteers that use the
Internet to communicate, plan, and develop the OpenSSL toolkit and its related documentation.
The OpenSSL toolkit is licensed in a manner that allows free usage for commercial and
noncommercial purposes subject to some simple license conditions. [46]
(U) PGP. PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is an application and protocol for secure e-mail and file
encryption developed by Phil Zimmerman. PGP was originally published as freeware, and the
source code has always been available for public use and adaptation. PGP uses a variety of
algorithms, such as IDEA, RSA, DSA, MD5, and SHA-1 for providing encryption,
authentication, message integrity, and private and public-key management. PGP is based on the
―Web-of-Trust‖ model and is the most popular encryption system used by individual personnel,
businesses, and governmental entities throughout the world to protect or hide content on the
Internet. [47]
(U) SQL. SQL (Structured Query Language) is also known as Database Language SQL (S-Q-L),
is a computer language designed for the retrieval and management of data in a relational
database management system, database schema creation and modification, and database object
access control management. SQL is a standard interactive and programming language for getting
information from and to update a database. Queries take the form of a command language that
lets you select, insert, update, find out the location of data, and so forth. [48]
(U) SQLite. SQLite is a public domain software library that implements a self-contained,
serverless, zero-configuration application that does not require setup or administration, cross
platform, transactional SQL database engine that can support terabyte-sized databases and
gigabyte-sized strings and blobs. SQLite is the most widely deployed SQL database engine in the
world. The software application is used in countless desktop computer applications as well as
consumer electronic devices including cellular phones, Personal Digital Assistants, and MP3
players. The source code for SQLite is in the public domain. SQLite is a popular choice as the
database to back small-to-medium-sized Web sites because it requires no or little configuration
and stores information in ordered disk files that are easy to access and will preserve transactions
after system crashes or power outages. SQLite is a completely self contained application that has
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 24 of 32
a small code print (250KB size fully configured) and is a faster client/server for common
operations. [49]
(U) TOR (or Tor). Tor (The Onion Router) is a network of virtual tunnels that allows people or
various groups to improve their privacy and security on the Internet. It also enables software
developers to create new communication tools with built-in privacy features. Tor provides the
foundation for a range of applications that allow organizations and individuals to share
information over public networks without compromising their privacy. Using Tor protects you
against a common form of Internet surveillance known as ―traffic analysis.‖ [50]
(U) Traffic analysis. Traffic analysis is a form of pattern and usage analysis that can be used to
infer who sending or receiving e-mail and data exchanges on a private network, public network,
or the Internet. Knowing the source and destination of Internet traffic allows individuals,
criminals, law enforcement, and intelligence and security services to track the activities,
behavior, and interests of the sender or receiver. This form of pattern analysis can be used to
identify persons and possibly threaten a person‘s employment and physical safety by revealing
who and where they are located. [51]
(U) Web servers. Web servers are computer hardware that stores HTML documents, images,
text files, scripts, and other Web-related data, collectively known as content, and distributes this
content to other clients on the network upon request.
(U) Wiki. A wiki is a type of Web site that allows users to easily add, remove, or otherwise edit
and change some available content, sometimes without the need for registration. This ease of
interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative authoring. The term
wiki can also refer to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation
of such a Web site or to certain specific wiki sites and the online encyclopedias such as
Wikipedia. Wiki was created in 1994 and installed on the Web in 1995 by Ward Cunningham.
[52]
(U) Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a blend of the words wiki and encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a
multilingual, Web-based free content encyclopedia project operated by the nonprofit Wikimedia
Foundation. Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers, allowing most articles to be
changed by almost anyone with access to the Web site. Wikipedia‘s main Web servers are in
Tampa, FL, with additional Web servers in Amsterdam and Seoul.[53]
[Back to Table of Contents]
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 25 of 32
(U) Appendix B: Methodology Used by Authors for Analysis
of Leaked Tables of Equipment for US Forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan
(U) A Wikileaks.org staff writer, Julian Assange, with assistance from several other persons
developed a SQL data base to store the 2,000 pages of leaked TOE information and merged
information from other sources into a usable data base for research purposes. The entire SQL
database developed by the authors for the TOEs was posted on the Wikileaks Web site for
anyone to use. The following is a list of steps purportedly used to make the data easy to use and
accessible for persons wanting to conduct their research.
1. Julian Assange and other persons that assisted him used publicly available open-source
information to learn and understand the abbreviations, acronyms, numbers, and other
nomenclatures in the leaked information, specifically NSN (NATO Stock Number), LIN (Line
Item Number), and UIC (Unit Identification Code). The authors compiled their results and
documented the information on US military logistics in a separate document on the Web site.
2. They then found various public NSN catalogues on the Internet, which were used to confirm
the validity of random samples of the leaked information using these databases and other
deployment references.
3. By hand, they created tallies for a select list of interesting items through their observations of
the reviewed information within the database. They wrote a draft report based on their research
and analysis of the database and other publicly available information.
4. They then used software and software applications such as VIM macros, PERL scripts, and
several Python programs to organize the material into a more presentable spreadsheet format
(such as Afghanistan OEF Property List and Afghanistan OEF Property List.html).
5. They wrote additional software code to merge data from several NATO Logistics
spreadsheets, which allowed the NSNs to be organized into subcategories to identify the NATO
Supply Group and NATO Supply Classification for the equipment.
6. They obtained a list of NATO Supply Group and NATO Supply Classification codes from
public US military logistics sources available on the Internet that was merged with other
spreadsheets.
7. They used SQL to install a database program.
8. They merged the original leaked data into group and classification code tables using a SQL
database, in this case using SQLite. The authors noted that any SQL database could have been
used to index and catalogue the information.
9. They used SQL to merge NATO Supply Classifications with leaked data to provide extra
context and generate Afghanistan OEF Property List-extended.html.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 26 of 32
10. Using SQL, they generated several different indexes and tallies for the leaked items, by
NATO Supply Group, NATO Supply Classification, and NSN. This data was then converted into
HTML format and placed into an appendix.
11. Again using SQL, they generated a unique list of NSNs. They wrote a script or software
program to concurrently query the US logistics Web-query NSN search for pricing information
and extract the price for every NSN on the list (except for alphanumeric NSNs, which are not
listed, probably due to being Management Control Numbers).[54]
12. They merged pricing information into the SQL database.
13. They used SQL to generate a new tally by NSN, merged this with the pricing information for
each NSN, sorted by the total price, converted the data to HTML, and placed it into the
Appendix.
14. They used SQL to calculate the total value of all equipment for which they had cost
information.
15. They examined the data and extracted additional information that was of interest such as
notable units and items of equipment.[55]
[Back to Table of Contents]
(U) References
[1] (U) Details of coordination available upon request.
[2] (U) Wikileaks. ―Global Defense of Sources and Press Freedoms, Circa Now—Tuesday, 27
November, 2007.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[3] (U) Wikileaks. ―Frequently Asked Questions.‖ URL: htttp://www.wikileaks.org/faq.
Accessed 27 November 2007.
[4] (U) The Times. ―The Week on the Web.‖ 27 January 2007, Accessed through Gale on 29
November 2007. Gale Document Number: CJ158454440. Source Citation; ―The week on the
web.‖ The Times; London, England, 27 January, 2007: 42. Academic One File. Gale. Remote
access for CFSC. 29 November 2007, at http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.
(U) Wikileaks. ―About‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[5] (U) Reuters. ―President Hu Jintao of China Has Stepped His Campaign to Purify ‗The
Internet.‘‖ URL: reuters.com. Accessed 29 November 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 27 of 32
(U) DIA. (U) Information Operations Capstone Threat Assessment, Volume 6: Russia. DI-1577-
33-06 Vol. 6, January 2006. SECRET//NOFORN; Derived from: Multiple sources; Declassify
on: 20300804. Accessed on 17 December 2007.
(U) DIA. (U) Information Operations Capstone Threat Assessment, Volume 10: Computer
Network Operations. DI-1577-33-06 Vol. 10, January 2006. SECRET//NOFORN; Derived from:
Multiple sources; Declassify on: 20300804. Accessed on 17 December 2007.
(U) CIA. (U) Assessment of the Counterintelligence Environment in Israel as of April 2006. TD-
314-50963-06, 251859Z JUL 06. SECRET//NOFORN. Derived from: Hum 1-03 by recorded
reporting officer; Declassify on: 25X1-Human CL Reason 1.4(C).
[6] (U) PHSYORG. ―Wikileaks—Website for whistleblowers.‖ URL: www.phsyorg.org.
Accessed 28 November 2007.
[7] (U) Wikileaks. ―About.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[8] (UK//RESTRICTED) Joint Security Co-ordination Centre. (U) United Kingdom Network
Activity Team (UK-NAT) Report: UK-Nat Initial Research into Wikileaks.Org. Serial No. 0047,
13 February 2007. UK//RESTRICTED.
[9] (U) Obscurification technology: the science of obscuring or hiding objects and information.
[10] (U) Wikileaks. ―About.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[11] (U) School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada. ―Internet
Geolocation and Evasion.‖ URL: http://cs.smu.ca/~jamuir/papers/TR-06-05.pdf. Accessed 5
January 2008.
(U) Geocities. ―Exposing Tor Users‘ IPs‖ URL:
http//uk.geocities.com/osin1941/exposingtor.html. Accessed on 28 December 2007.
(U) Secunia. ―Multiple Security Vulnerabilities for Tor.‖ CVE-2006-3407, CVE-2006-3408,
CVE-2006-3409, CVE-2006-3410, CVE-2006-0414, CVE-2006-3165, CVE-2006-4508, CVE-
2007-4096, CVE-2007-4097, CVE-2007-4098, CVE-2007-4099, CVE-2007-4174, CVE-2007-
4508, CVE-2007-4099. URL: http://archives.seul.org. Accessed on 8 January 2008.
[12] (U) Wikileaks. ―About.‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[13] (U) Federal Times. ― Web Site Aims To Post Government Secrets.‖ 8 January 2007.
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-
2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AFNB:FEDB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx
&rft_dat=116B327
BAEF51E40&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=106D72482B2E456E. Accessed 28
November 2007. Copyright by Federal Times. All rights reserved. Reproduced with the
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 28 of 32
permission of Gannett Co., Inc. by News Bank, Inc. Record Number: fed26373060. Accessed 28
November 2007.
[14] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Reposted
to Web site with permission of the author. All Rights Reserved.
[15] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[16] (U) Wikileaks. ―Excel Spreadsheet: Iraq_OIF_Property_List.‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/ Iraq_OIF_Property_List. Accessed on 27 November 2007.
[17] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[18] (U) Julian Assange is a former computer hacker convicted by the Australian government for
hacking into US government and DoD computer networks in 1997. He is widely known for his
support for open government initiatives, leftist ideology, anti-US views, and opposition to the
Global War on Terrorism.
[19] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[20] (U) Wikileaks. ―About‖ URL: www.wikileaks.org/about. Accessed 27 November 2007.
[21] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[22] (S//NF) See ACIC Special Report, Iraqi Insurgent and Militia Group Intelligence
Capabilities to Counter US Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Systems, NGIC-2381-7326-
06, for a discussion on the transnational terrorist threat to the Warlock system. In addition, see
ACIC Special Report, Multidiscipline Counterintelligence Threat Assessment for the Counter
Radio Control Improvised Explosive Device Electronic Warfare (CREW)-2 Program, NGIC-
2381-0482-07, for a discussion of the FISS and foreign terrorism threat to the associated critical
program information for the WARLOCK system.
[23] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 29 of 32
[24] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[25] (U) Available at URL:
https://www.webflis.dlis.dla.mil/WEBFLIS/ASPscripts/pub_search.aspx.
[26] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
http://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[27] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[28] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
[29] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
[30] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
(U) US Army. Field Manual 3-11.9: Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and
Compounds—Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. January 2005. Distribution Restriction:
Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited. Available on AKO at www.us.army.mil.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[31] (U) US Army. Field Manual 3-11.9: Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and
Compounds—Tactics, Techniques and Procedures. January 2005. Distribution Restriction:
Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited. Available on AKO at www.us.army.mil.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[32] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Violates Chemical Weapons Convention.‖ 8 November 2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_violates_chemical_weapons_convention. Accessed on 29
November 2007.
[33] (U) Wikileaks. ―Guantanamo Document Confirms Psychological Torture.‖ 11 November
2007. URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Guantanamo_document_confirms_psychological_torture.
Accessed 27 November 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 30 of 32
(U) Original Citation: US Federal Court. ―United States vs. American Civil Liberties Union.‖
URL:
http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/20070110/DoD_vaughn_r_denied_in_full_section_6_interim.
pdf. Accessed 17 December 2007.
[34] (U) Carol Rosenberg. Miami Herald. ―Old Manual Sheds Light on Detainee Treatment.‖ 15
November 2007. URL:
http://pd.miami.com/sp?aff=100&keywords=old+manual+sheds+light+on+Detainee+Treatment
&submit=go. Accessed 17 December 2008.
[35] (U) Wikileaks.org. ― Classified U.S. Report into the Fallujah Assult [sic].‖ 25 December
2007. URL: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_U.S_report_into_the_Fallujah_assult.
Accessed 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD
information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be
handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR. Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.
SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived from: Multiple sources. Declassify on 20310306.
[36] Source available on request.
[37] (U) Wikileaks.org. ―Classified U.S. Report into the Fallujah Assult [sic].‖ 25 December
2007. URL: https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/Classified_U.S_report_into_the_Fallujah_assult.
Accessed 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD
information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be
handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR.) Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I. April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.
SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived from: Multiple sources. Declassify on 20310306.
[38] (U) Wikileaks.org. ―Complex Environments: Battle of Fallujah I, April 2004.‖ 25 December
2007. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Complex_Environments:_Battle_of_Fallujah_I%2C_April_2004.
Accessed on 28 December 2007. WARNING: Parts of this article contain leaked classified DoD
information up to SECRET//NOFORN//20310306 that has not been downgraded and must be
handled and processed as SECRET//NOFORN//MR. Original Source: NGIC (U) Complex
Environments: Battle of Fallujah I. April 2004. NGIC-1127-7138-06.
SECRET//NOFORN//20310306. Derived From: Multiple Sources. Declassify on 20310306.
[39] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required
Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.
(U) Spy Blog. ―Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?‖ 5 January 2007.
URL:
http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_
a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17
December 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 31 of 32
[40] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required
Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.
(U) Spy Blog. ―Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?‖ 5 January 2007.
URL:
http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_
a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17
December 2007.
[41] (U) Government Transparency. ―Foreign Government: National Security, Legal, Civil,
Ethical Systems, and Openness on the Internet.‖ 27 September 2007. URL:
http://www.opengovtranproject.org /index/opengov/censorship/threats/20070927002. Required
Citation—Reposted with permission of the author to Web site. All rights reserved.
(U) Spy Blog. ―Is Wikileaks.org the Right Idea for a Whistleblowing Website?‖ 5 January 2007.
URL:
http://p10.hostingprod.com@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2007/01/is_wikileaks.org_the_right_idea_for_
a_ whistleblowing_website/html. Moved from URL: www.spy.org.uk/spyblog. Accessed on 17
December 2007.
[42] (U) Network World. McNamara, Paul. ―Google Earth and ‗collateral damage.‘‖ 19 January
2007. Academic One File. Gale. Remote access for CFSC. 29 November 2007. URL:
http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE. Gale Document Number: A158081425.
Accessed on 29 November 2007.
[43] (U) Wikipedia. ―Freenet‖ URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet. Accessed on 18
December 2007.
(U) The Freenet Project. ―What is the Freenet Project?‖ URL: http://freenet
project.org/whatis.html. Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[44] (U) Google Earth. ―About Google Earth.‖ URL: http://earth.google.com/. Accessed on 18
December 2007.
[45] (U) Wikipedia. ―About Wikipedia.‖ URL: http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/wikipedia.
Accessed on 17 December 2007.
[46] (U) OpenSSL Project. ―About OpenSSL Project.‖ URL: http://www.openssl.org/. Accessed
17 December 2007.
[47] (U) PGP. ―Glossary for PGP.‖ URL: http://www.pgp.com/company/pgp_glossary.html.
Accessed on 17 December 2007.
http://wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf
SECRET//NOFORN
SECRET//NOFORN
Page 32 of 32
[48] (U) Wikipedia. ―SQL.‖ URL: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL. Accessed on 16 December
2007.
(U) Chapple, Mike. SQL Fundamentals (HTML), About.com: Databases. About.com. Retrieved
on 2007-06-10.
(U) Structured Query Language (SQL) (HTML), International Business Machines, 27 October,
2006. Retrieved on 6 October 2007; Accessed on 17 December 2007.
[49] (U) Sqlite.org. ―SQLITE‖ URL: http://www.sqlite.org/features.html. Accessed on 4 January
2008.
[50] (U) Tor Project. ―Tor: anonymity online.‖ http://www.torproject.org/index.html.en.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[51] (U) Tor Project. ―Why We Need Tor.‖ http://www.torproject.org/overview.html.en.
Accessed on 18 December 2007.
[52] (U) Wikipedia. ―Wiki.‖ URL: http://www.ismc.sgov.gov/wiki/wiki. Accessed on 8 January
2008.
[53] (U) Wikipedia. ―Wikipedia‖ URL: http://www.ismc.sgov.gov/wiki/Wikipedia. Accessed on
8 January 2008.
[54] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007.
(U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Afghanistan (2007).‖ URL:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan. Accessed 27
November 2007.
[55] (U) Wikileaks. ―US Military Equipment in Iraq (2007).‖ URL:
www.wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Iraq%282007%29. Accessed 27
November 2007. Note: The SQL database referenced in the article is accessible at the following
URL: leak:us_military_equipment_in_iraq_and_afghanistan.sql.gz.
WikiLeaks & The Sunshine Press
http://sunshinepress.org/
The document you have been reading was passed to us by an individual stepping forward to reveal the truth or
preserve the integrity of the historical record. WikiLeaks is acknowledged to be the most successful defender of
confidential sources and the public’s right to know. If you have confidential material, contact us securely at:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/
Our publisher, The Sunshine Press, is an international non-profit organization funded by human rights campaigners,
investigative journalists, technologists, lawyers and the general public. Since 2007 we have exposed thousands of
military, political and corporate abuses—fighting off over 100 legal attacks to do so. No WikiLeaks’ source been ever
exposed and the organization has yet to lose a legal case. Our disclosures have triggered many reforms, including the
removal of two corrupt national governments. We have found that knowledge is suppressed because of its power to
change and that only new knowledge brings meaningful change. Ultimately, the quality of every political, economic
and personal decision depends on understanding the world and how it came to be that way. By revealing the true
state of our world, through millions of pages of suppressed information, we are creating the primary ingredient for a
better civilization. Although our work has won many awards, it is your strong support that preserves our continued
independence and strength.
wikileaks.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)