The move to publish uncensored cables drew stinging condemnation from newspapers which collaborated with Wikileaks in the past. Source: Supplied
- Wikileaks published uncensored cables
- Cables "illegally" identify an ASIO officer
- Sparks backlash from major newspapers
JULIAN Assange could face prosecution in Australia after publishing Wikileaks' entire archive of US State Department cables, including sensitive information about government officials.
Most of the cables were published uncensored - a move that drew stinging condemnation from major newspapers which in the past collaborated with the anti-secrecy group.
Attorney General Robert McClelland said in a statement that the release identified at least one individual within Australia?s intelligence service, the Guardian reported.
He added it is a criminal offence to publish any information which could lead to the identification of an intelligence officer.
"I am aware of at least one cable in which an ASIO officer is purported to have been identified," he said. "ASIO and other Government agencies officers are working through the material to see the extent of the impact on Australian interests.
"On occasions before this week, WikiLeaks redacted identifying features where the safety of individuals or national security could be put at risk. It appears this hasn't occurred with documents that have been distributed across the internet this week and this is extremely concerning."
Many media outlets previously had access to all or part of the uncensored tome. But WikiLeaks' decision to post the 251,287 cables on its website makes potentially sensitive diplomatic sources available to anyone, anywhere at the stroke of a key.
A joint statement published on the Guardian's website said the British publication and its international counterparts - The New York Times, France's Le Monde, Germany's Der Spiegel and Spain's El Pais - "deplore the decision of WikiLeaks to publish the unredacted State Department cables, which may put sources at risk".
Previously, international media outlets - and WikiLeaks itself - had redacted the names of potentially vulnerable sources, although the standard has varied and some experts warned that even people whose names had been kept out of the cables were still at risk.
But now many, and possibly even all, of the cables posted to the WikiLeaks website carried unredacted names.
In an interview with the Associated Press earlier this week, former US State Department official PJ Crowley warned that the new release could be used to intimidate activists in authoritarian countries.
Crowley said "any autocratic security service worth its salt" probably already would have the complete unredacted archive of cables, but that the fresh releases mean that any intelligence agency that did not "will have it in short order".
WikiLeaks staff members have not returned repeated requests for comment sent by AP in the past two days. But in a series of messages on Twitter, the group suggested that it had no choice but to publish the archive because copies of the document were already circulating online following a security breach.
The controversy is a further blow to WikiLeaks, whose site is under financial embargo and whose leader remains under virtual house arrest in an English country mansion pending extradition proceedings to Sweden on unrelated sexual assault allegations.
WikiLeaks says it will increasingly turn to "crowdsourcing" - that is, relying on internet users to sift through its leaked documents and flag important material.
It says the process is working, pointing to one document flagged by Twitter users who've already begun perusing the newly released files.
The cable, filed in 2006, carries an explosive allegation that US forces entered a house during a 2006 raid in Iraq, handcuffed 10 members of the same family and executed them.
Although the UN letter in which the allegation was made was five years old, its publication put new pressure on the already strained negotiations over keeping US forces in Iraq.
Iraq's Government said it is investigating, and some officials said the document is reason enough for the country to force the American military to leave instead of signing a deal allowing troops to stay beyond a year-end departure deadline.
0 comments:
Post a Comment