This is a live diary. This thread is devoted to commenting on the original content within the raw diplomatic cables.
Adept2u recommended a separate Diary to focus on the cable content:
Update: 12:06
Adept2u: "Here is a link to a diary that can serve as a child for this one and for people who are interested in discussing the content of the cables. Diplomatic Cable Content Discussion Diary"
Some cables are available here, (h/t Anak). Guardian is commenting on cables, with access here.
Suggested Format For Comments
Thank you for your inputs to this Diary. It would be useful, in your comment, to provide a link to the Diplomatic Cable you are referring to.
This Kos Diary is intended to provide, as requested here, a new comment thread to discuss the cable content: To give the content-discussion more visibility and access.
Der Spiegel has an interesting graphic. It allows you to choose time-periods and countries.
For example, one area that is interesting to notice is the relationship between diplomatic notes to a specific country, and high profile events: Shootdown in Paraguay; the CIA rendition [Morocco, Thailand, Poland]. You can see spikes when there is apparent increased DOS communications because of questions related to these US-connected events.
Part I.
This is a template for you to consider when reviewing and commenting on the diplomatic cables.
Suggested Format:
- Link: Source of Cable, with a link
- Quote: A copy of the part of the cable content you want to bring attention to
- Background: Links to other discussion or background information, such as another database discussing that content [Key terms, acronyms, Government publication]
- Related Documents: There are – already disclosed – diplomatic cables on other websites, which relate to important legal issues. There’s a sample "other site" for cross referencing diplomatic cables via EFF and the ACLU.
- Legal Authority: Any DOJ OLC legal documents, affidavit, or Executive Orders which may relate to the subject matter.
Sample Comments In other Kos Diaries
For your reference and assistance, the opening comments in this diary will focus on sample content-discussions located on other Kos Diaries.
User Tip
Until the DOS Attack ends on Wikileaks, one way to review some of the new, raw cables is at the Guardian, with a country-specific guide (lower left).
You can change the document number in the HTML to review other cables:
Here, change "219058" to other six-digit numbers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/... . . .219058
Here is a sample cable format re Iceland, released earlier this year.
Consolidation, Focus
The aim is to focus here on the content, and send non-content-focused discussions to another important Kos diary. As some have noted below in the comments, there are too many comments at another Diary to focus on the cable content. For non-content discussion, visit this thread where there are many non-content comments.
Background Links
These are links that may point to some other sites that are posting the cables.
Here, in this Kos diary comment thread, focus on the original cables.
There are some other mirror sites for wikileaks, but these appear also to be under DOS Attack. Here is a mirror for wikileaks, also (apparently) under DOS attack.
Marcie at FDL had some discussion.
Discussion on WL Central, an unofficial site about the Cables. Live blogging of the cable release.
Twitter Trending/Key Words: Cablegate. Skdadl
Part II. Samples of Multi-Database Analysis of Diplomatic Cables
Here is a sample comparison between the Vaughn Index, the DOJ OLC memos, and the Information from the State Department.
Sample 1
This shows how to jump between a court document, DOS cables, and DOJ OLC comments related to that issue.
A. Vaughn Index Information [CIA Affidavit]
7/26/2004
NSC: With State, DoD, DoJ, CIA
Four page document with, handwritten notes concerning a meeting with a four page attachment, plus a fax cover sheet and a routing cover sheet
B. Government memos
Congressional: Asking for views on DOJ OLC memo:
Letter requesting Dept's views re OLC memos on application of treaties to Al Qaeda/Taliban detainees (1/22/2002) and interrogation standards (8/1/2002), including whether Dept was involved in their preparation and whether Dept agrees with conclusion re suspension of Geneva Convention and analysis of Torture Convention.
C. DOJ OLC Memos
Here are some sample DOJ OLC memos from August 1st:
First Second Third Fourth
DOJ OLC memo summary: Agencies requested opinion on whether conduct was torture. Specific intent to commit torture, and inflict pain. (4th memo: "RE: Standards of Conduct For Interrogation Under 18 U.S.C. ßß 2340-2340A."
Sample 2:
This shows how to trace between DOJ and DOS documents using a specific date near an issue of interest.
A. Vaughn
Redacted Document from Vaughn File, CIA Vaughn Index
B. DOJ OLC Memo: 7/14/2004
C. Disclosed Email
July 12th DOS email Memo referencing "OLC, protected persons."
Sample 3:
This shows how a name in a DOS cable can help illuminate information within DOJ discussion circules.
We can also go one step further on these disclosed emails and cables, and understand the connection between the disclosed names on the emails, and other events which tend to mirror the subject, timing, and content of the still classified DOJ OLC memos.
Sample name trace:
Joshua Dorosin is listed on the Memo, who is later linked with DOS emails in October 2004 related to "ghost detainees." [UN working group on disappearances/inquiry on ghost detainees] Later relates to A-HRC-13-42, UN report on secret detention, Jan 26, 2010.
Meaning of FBIS
Once FBIS is connected with a foreign media report about alleged US breaches of international law, DoD Judge Advocate Generals would be hard pressed to explain why they did not have access to these similar media reports collected through US intelligence collection and transcription services.
Once FBIS is connected with the emails sent before July 2004, this would logically extend the circle of the DOJ OLC discussions to include DoD Judge Advocate Generals.
Legal experts will have to present evidence and argument to the court to review whether the "deliberative shield" applies to alleged unlawful activity after a media report related to a Presidential decision; and when those emails disclose a connection between non-DOJ personnel in State with a DOJ tasking.
Sample 4:
This shows how to use open media-listed names to research other databases with DOS-posted cables.
Using the disclosed memos, and the timing of the emails sent related to the Vaughn Index for the redacted CIA documents, we should be able to form some hypothetical questions related to content, subjects, and other administrative actions now disclosed in the diplomatic cables.
One expected action would be US government employee concern and communications. Speculating, we should be able to find JAG inputs because they should have received also the FBIS information related to the foreign media reports of alleged US-White House connection with unlawful interrogation.
Here is a sample media trace using this hypothesis, which shows that the method used to formulate questions – that of independently linking the Vaughn index with the timing of (a) DOJ OLC memos and (b) DOJ-State emails is consistent with publicly available media reports on the same subject.
WaPo: "The dissents include three classified memos written in the spring of 2003 by senior military lawyers in the Air Force, Marine Corps and Army, and a classified memo by the Navy's top civilian lawyer, Alberto J. Mora, say government officials who have read them.
WaPo: "Two officials said the memos were written by Air Force Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, Marine Brig. Gen. Kevin M. Sandkuhler and Army Maj. Gen. Thomas J. Romig.
Sample 5:
This shows how DOJ OLC legal points connect with DOS cables, and subsequent briefs to the Supreme Court.
This sample comparison shows how the timing of memos relates to the Supreme Court; and expressly mentions in the documents the connection between the Vaugn index, DOJ OLC memos, and the Supreme Court.
A. CIA Vaughn Index: Vaughn Index reference: 7/16/2004, "DOJ State Five page letter concerning an OLC draft memo"
B. DOJ OLC memos -- There were two memos from July 2004
One relates to the CIA, and involves the White House (via Propublica):
OLC 85, which is a nine-page memorandum, with highlighting, dated July 16, 2004, from the Assistant Attorney General in OLC to the Attorney General, evaluating the implications of a recent Supreme Court decision for certain foreign intelligence activities.
Part III. Reviewing JCON for DOJ OLC access times
Here are some key terms when conducting a forensic audit of DOJ OLC legal counsel electronic data. This may help provide context to the discussions within DOJ OLC when the diplomatic cables were disseminated, who reviewed them within legal circles, and how those timelines square with other public disclosures.
Sample Search Routines to Audit Within JCON: JCON records show, in part, access times, inputs, and results.
Part A. The Results
Here are some of the OLC-connected documents which would have been available to legal counsel after 2001. You can check within JCON the access times from the DOJ OLC legal counsel to these specific records:
www.justice.gov/olc/smothsonop2.htm -- The key words that would have been entered by the DOJ OLC legal counsel in their search – and positive result of this webpage within JCON searches – would be the following: [319 U.S. 441]. That case number will cross-index with a specific legal counsel law review article and/or their practice notes and case summary file available on their desk, in printed form, which they can manually refer before conducting a search on JCON.
Part B. Sample Search Routine
Use the information within the brackets when duplicating the likely DOJ OLC searches within JCON. Specifically, DOJ OLC legal counsel likely used the following in the search for 319 US 441, using the following search commands:
(a) [OLC and "319 U.S. 441"];
(b) [Mayo v United States, 319 US 441, 447 (1940]; or
(c) [OLC and 319 US 441]
Also check the OSG briefs from 1986 which include this website:
[ www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1986/sg860450.txt ]
Focus on Footnote /17/. Look for similar search terms from that footnote through JCON after Sept 2001 discussions on FISA alternatives.
You can also encourage the court – not DOJ – to review their own records of similar DOJ OLC legal counsel requests for information. For example, DOJ OLC may have reviewed the following court record:
[ bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/juris/j0600_07.sgml ]
Look for the DOJ-related IP numbers accessing that judicial (non Executive branch) website using the similar search routines above (a)-(c).
You can also request from [ ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/juris/j1705_42.sgml ] a summary report showing all DOJ OLC legal counsel access to the document with this number [doc id=1705_42.18.903014 ]
Here are the other relevant codes for similar searches related to files containing the case of interest; and they are connected with this document information, which should match DOJ OLC access times:
file id=1705_42
extractdate="04/09/94"
doc id=1705_42.18.903014
field id=030
Encryption Backdoors Through DOJ IT Contractors
If DOJ OLC used encryption to access these non-DOJ OLC websites, do not be concerned. There are protocols which will assist you. These are known through the encryption community as encryption standards.
You will be given various key terms related to these encryption standards which you will want to examine when reviewing the DOJ-connected procurement and contracting files. This will lead you to the specific contracting documents and the names of those non-DOJ contractors providing this encryption service. Although the information may be encrypted, the original access times are available through these third-party vendors who are on contract to retain and store the non-encrypted version of these DOJ OLC access times.
The information you are seeking is not related to intelligence, but related to allegations of illegal activity by US government legal counsel, despite their known legal duty to enforce the Constitution against domestic enemies.
One of the encryption standards you may request – when reviewing the DOJ procurement documents – are contractors which have an [X.509 certificate]
Other terms to review within this encryption software and contracting documents will be the following [Fortezza] and/or [KOV-14]. If they used that and it is contained on that document, that will lead you to the specific [Secure Terminal Equipment] which the DOJ OLC legal counsel may have been using.
Disclosed Evidence: Back Engineering the Electronic Model Number
When doing this forensic audit, you only need a few samples of outputs from that equipment. One option is to use the disclosed information on an electronic fax: The time/page is marked. Using a disclosed electronic fax, you can calculate the fax pager per minute or page per second; and this will tell you which version of the electronic fax may have been used to send or receive the classified information to and from DOJ OLC.
Again, that specific computer equipment – using that disclosed information on the public document – will lead you to a specific type of equipment, mentioned on a specific purchase order, and linked with specific maintenance and connection times via JCON.
Also, when considering FISA-related decision, DOJ OLC and DOJ would have likely connected through SIPRNet, and there may be some overlaps with PAED, which is the Pentagon Area Enterprise Directory. If DOJ OLC was using a classified net and going through DoD-connected areas, that will be an area to include in the FOIA.
If you would like additional details on the documents the DOJ IT personnel would have reviewed when establishing the network – and ensuring there was adequate backup systems to support this type of forensic audit – you can mention a few things [FIPS-140-2]. If DOJ OLC and the DOJ IT areas are using cryptographic modules, then the Federal Information Processing Standard would be something you can request: Focus on when DOJ IT was reviewing this document; then examine the times after they reviewed that document to change in DOJ OLC access and use of the cryptographic systems.
You may immediately run into some confusion about this process, but there is something called a CMVP which validates the modules DOJ OLC/IT may have been using. This is the cryptologic modele validation program: You can request through the FOIA process is this CMVP was connected, used, or involved with any IT systems DOJ OLC may have had access after September 2001.
Some of you may have some questions about whether the equipment DOJ OLC was using was cryptographic or not; and whether that physical system could be tampered with. There is something called [FIPS 140-2 Level 3] which adds requirements for physical tamper resistance. In the FOIA, you can specifically ask for the "Level 3" designation to gain insight into whether the physical tampering was considered when selecting this aspect of the cryptographic equipment possibly available to DOJ OLC.
There are some terms within the documents DOJ OLC would have reviewed at the classified level, especially when they were getting background information on the specific NSA-related interception methods which allegedly violated FISA.
Semantic Traffic Analyzer
For starters, try these, and then share whether they did or did not have any positive results:
[TGIF; Tactical Ground Intercept Facility]
[THMT: Tactical High Mobility Terminal ]
[TIBS: Tactical Information Broadcast System]
A stateside TGIF could host DOJ-interest areas, supported by the NSA.
The point isn’t that DOJ OLC were experts on these above three (3) terms, only that they likely would have (written down, sent via e-mail) asked – at some points after 2001 – some questions about these systems, and whether they did or did not have any connection with the legal compliance programs they sought to exclude from Judicial review.
Again, attempt to get through JCON any DOJ OLC emails with the above three; then consider whether those overlaps shed light on specific DOJ OLC legal counsel who had access or were using through cryptographic methods any of the above websites, documents, or other identifying features associated with the domestic surveillance.
There’s also something within DOJ that may connected to NSA-affiliated contractors. The IT department within DOJ should be able to recognize the following encryption-related terms as they related to DOD systems [TACLANE], which is, "Tactical Local Area Network Encryption."
We don’t know if DOJ used DoD to send messages. If so, the DOJ IT department should be able to recognize [TACLANE E-100 ] or [ TACLANE KG-175D ] within the procurement documents.
Part C: The Full Legal Citation for the above search routines
These are the DOJ OLC-disclosed legal citations that they should have been well aware immediately after 2001. It’s irrelevant that they waited until 2007 to disclose these to the public in this filing.
18 of 35, at 8-22: DOJ OLC well aware of the connection with State AGs [emphasis added]:
The government presents an impressive patchwork of dicta in support of its theory, but none of the cases it cites pertains to the present facts. Hancock v Train, 426 US 167, 174 (1976), for example, concerns a state attorney general’s efforts to require the United States Army, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Atomic Energy Commission to obtain state air pollution permits for facilities on federal installations. The Hancock Court found decisive the fact that the regulations "place[d] a prohibition on the federal government" — a feature absent here. Both Mayo v United States, 319 US 441, 447 (1943), and City of Los Angeles v United States, 355 F Supp 461, 464 (CF Cal 1972), prove equally unavailing for the government. In both cases, plaintiffs sought to exact fees directly from a government entity. Again, no equivalent interplay between the public utilities and the federal government exists here.
Conclusion
Focus on the timing of the memos already disclosed, and dovetail those withthe now released diplomatic cables.
You’ve been given a platform on the Kos Diaries to discuss your insights into the Diplomatic cables. With time, you’ll see how the disclosed cables mesh with other important legal decisions connected with the White House, not limited to FISA violations, POW treatment, CIA rendition, and other areas of public interests.
Do not look narrowly at the diplomatic cables without considering how the timing of those cables fit in with the timelines associated with DOJ OLC memos, and other documents related to the FISA-Geneva violations.
Your job will be to not get lost in the weeds of the diplomatic cables. Remember, there are many others who are working with you to disclose evidence of unlawful US government activity, especially when it endangers the Constitution and American citizens.
The information above should be considered with caution: It does not focus exclusively on information contained within the cables, but helps provide you with context to other sources of information to check the disclosures through wikileaks; and provides some examples of how your analysis can be used during subsequent FOIA reviews and forensic audits of the US government’s databases.