US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort

from the and-the-truth-comes-out dept

Thu, Jan 20th 2011 9:22am — Mike Masnick

You may recall that when Wikileaks released those thousands of documents on the Afghan war, the official US government position was that it should be shamed for putting lives in danger and "compromising intelligence sources and methods." It was only months later that Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted no such thing was true. We're now seeing the same thing with the State Department cable leak. A number of grandstanding officials such as Rep. Peter King and Senator Joe Lieberman have argued that these leaks have seriously harmed US diplomacy. In fact, we heard how Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization for all the "harm" it's done to US interests. This was also a common refrain in our comments -- especially when it came to stories about the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. Over and over we were told he deserves no mercy for harming American interests.

So... it seems rather interesting to see that US officials are now admitting that no serious "harm" has been caused by the leaks. In fact, the White House has admitted privately that it purposely lied about the supposed impact " in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers." Implicated as chief among the official liars: State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley, who lead the propaganda campaign against Wikileaks for the past few months, claiming "there has been substantial damage," and that "hundreds of people have been put at potential risk." And yet, when Congress asked the State Department to back up those statements, officials told them it really wasn't that big of a deal:

"We were told (the impact of WikiLeaks revelations) was embarrassing but not damaging," said the official, who attended a briefing given in late 2010 by State Department officials.

Basically, the details show what many of us have said from the beginning. Some of the revelations may be embarrassing, but that's mainly because stuff was hidden that shouldn't have been hidden in the first place. In fact, many of the reports have noted that the cables seemed to only confirm what many people already knew. Of course, that won't change the opinion of the people who have already made up their minds that Wikileaks is, by definition, harmful -- which was the point of the propaganda campaign.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: politics, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

26 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

johnjac (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:08am

potential risk
What in the world does "potential risk" mean? Risk is already uncertain, so was is added by saying "potential risk"?

Head scratching.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:29am
  
  Re: potential risk
  It's one of those made up phrases...like "near miss".
  
  "Here's one they just made up: "near miss". When two planes almost collide, they call it a near miss. It's a near hit. A collision is a near miss." -George Carlin
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: potential risk
    - in John's example id say the adjectives are cumulative with potential being very mild, so "potential risk" can be replaced by negligible.
    
    Near miss = almost missed (but in fact they didn't) or am i over thinking it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - pixelpusher220 (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re: potential risk
      near miss = it missed but was *really* close
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chargone (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: potential risk
        or, if you use separate words rather than a stock phrase 'just barely a miss' or various other slightly awkward constructions. 'just barely missed' works fine though... tense, mood, all sorts of other fun grammatical things playing around there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Groove Tiger (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 10:14pm
  
  Re: potential risk
  Well, if we consider that risk itself is a potential harm (an action that might result in harm), then potential risk is an action, which might result in a completely different action that is risky.
  
  For example, if I shoot a bullet into the sky, that's potential harm: it could hit somebody in the head and kill him. It's risky (and irresponsible).
  
  Conversely, if I were to eat a cheeseburger, that's "potential risk": what it, instead of eating a cheeseburger, I drove a drill into my eye socket? Therefore, it's potentially risky to do something that is not risky at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:39am

Because we actually read them.
Basically, the details show what many of us have said from the beginning.

I believe those denouncing WL never took the time to actually read what was in the cables.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: Because we actually read them.
  Of course they didn't actually read them. Those cables were above their classification and their work computers were programmed to taze them if they even thought about Wikileaks.
  
  /obvious sarc
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dagi Cueppers, 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:45am

Twitter Petition
Please consider signing this petition to stand up for WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and Bradley Manning. It takes one click to sign and tweet it directly to Barack Obama's Twitter account. Thank you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sim, 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:57am

"potential risk"
those fellows are trying to shut down our illegal actions and our free money graVY TRAIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 9:59am

Are any of us really that suprized about this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mats Henricson, 20 Jan 2011 @ 10:02am

Now, why would we believe them this time?
The released cables have shown that we have been consistently lied to. Not just by US representatives, but by politicians and government officials from all countries. Why would it be different this time?

The biggest damage is that we don't trust them anymore, which is bad for everyone. Now our politicians are trying to do damage control by asserting, without any evidence, that it isn't as bad as we think. Of course they will do that, but is it true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mats Henricson, 20 Jan 2011 @ 10:03am

Now, why would we believe them this time?
The released cables have shown that we have been consistently lied to. Not just by US representatives, but by politicians and government officials from all countries. Why would it be different this time?

The biggest damage is that we don't trust them anymore, which is bad for everyone. Now our politicians are trying to do damage control by asserting, without any evidence, that it isn't as bad as we think. Of course they will do that, but is it true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 10:03am

Are any of us really that suprized about this?
Mike has mentioned a few times that we have not really seen any real damage (other than face) by the cables being leaked. It was only a matter of time before someone fessed up about.

Sorry for the repost. I forgot how to work a keyboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 10:08am

slander and libel
isn't this the exact definitions of both slander and libel for the government to have done this? Basically we've committed defamation on every country we went after trying to villify assange. Good job US. *facepalm*.

sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnson, 20 Jan 2011 @ 11:12am

it was all a setup so as to get tighter control on freedom of speech, the internet and whistle blowing. trouble is they have done themselves more harm by lying and over reacting. the Obama administration is still touting human rights and freedom of speech (particularly to China atm) whilst doing the exact opposite! disgraceful!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tangerine (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 11:23am

Open letter-video to US government on WL
Yes, the Obama administration's response to this has been highly anti-democratic.

Personally, I'd hazard a guess our Prez is pretty tired of being beseiged, and WL and Assange gave him a black eye he didn't need. Not good reason to behave in an authoritarian manner, but I am trying to understand our president on this.

However, more importantly - a global group of citizens is sending a strong message to the US gov to handle this better.

We are people from 15 countries at present, all participating in speaking this open letter on video.

Neither WL nor Assange are above criticism. However, it is critical we come together to send a strong message that we will not tolerate futher threats to our freedoms.

We need more people to join us! Read the open letter and instructions at: www.support-julian-assange.com

Please join us - or, spread the word about this project!

Thank you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pringerX (profile), 20 Jan 2011 @ 11:31am

This is completely unsurprising. If there had been compromising information released, it would have been dealt with swiftly and most likely, silently. The fact that it was trumpeted in this manner suggests nothing crucial was at stake in the first place, aside from some egos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2011 @ 12:09pm

Has anyone considered the that "officials" are trying to downplay the issues to congress, so they don't have to live with some congressional panel up their patoots for the next 5 years?

Just say, you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 20 Jan 2011 @ 12:38pm

It would have been funnier to read about this revelation in a leaked cable via Wikilinks. Does the State Department really not see the irony here? They are used to publicly saying one thing while secretly/privately saying another. That's what Wikilieaks exposed that caused them to have so much egg on their face. Their response to the situation? Say 1 thing publicly and another thing privately.

/facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2011 @ 12:52pm

Is there any wonder why the US citizens don't trust their government? Between being lied to on a regular basis, spied on continually, with government leaders that are seemingly unconcerned for those that put them in office, and with security branches that seem to run contrary to what the country is supposed to stand for, I have a hard time understanding at this point why we aren't haven't government bodies at street corners asking for "papers".

Wikileaks of itself isn't the problem, the real problem is a government trying to hide everything it's doing. The only reason it would be mainly concerned with hiding everything is that they are doing things that wouldn't look good on the home front if it saw the light of day. It's a sign of a government afraid of it's people.

Wikileaks is having to take the place of the FOIA, since the FOIA isn't near as effective as it should be and wikileaks manages to get the key people that know where the skeletons are and why they are there.

The exposures that wikileaks is doing needs done. The media no longer does what it should do and is instead a mouth piece of the government. Investigative reporting is for all intents and purposes dead when it comes to bringing to light misdeeds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 20 Jan 2011 @ 2:39pm

Perhaps the attack on Assange will ease up now. On another note, it's nice to see Lieberman is retiring. Hopefully he realized he is losing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Jan 2011 @ 3:29pm

The US Government has lied
And you know what the sad part is? Most people won't care. They'll go on with "my country, right or wrong" and not care about those rights that are getting taken away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mhenriday (profile), 23 Jan 2011 @ 9:16am

It would seem that anyone interested in the (recent ?) history
of the US State Department would be advised to begin his or her research with a dip into Alan Stuart Franken's book, �Lies and the lying liars that tell them�, just for background colour.... Henri
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm, 23 Jan 2011 @ 5:50pm

not harmful eh?
I think the leaks have been EXTREMELY harmful (mostly to my ability to sleep at night) because they've exposed Obama's administration as a totalitarian sham which would love nothing more than to end freedom of the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jack, 12 Mar 2011 @ 7:30am

Manning
It's not about weather he is guilty of anything it's to discourage whistle blowers. Cheney and his gang outed a CIA agent and almost got a lot of under cover agents killed around the world and they got away free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]