Video: WikiSecrets -- Frontline's Profile of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning

, T

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

Podcast: Joseph Nye on the Future of Power

Link to audio here.

Joseph Nye is a long-time analyst of power and a hands-on practitioner in government. His concept of "soft power" has been adopted by leaders from Britain to China and "smart power" has been adopted as the bumper-sticker for the Obama Administration's foreign policy. In this lecture, drawn from his new book The Future of Power, Nye outlines the major shifts of this century: new transnational challenges such as the financial crisis, global epidemics, and climate change facing an increasingly interconnected world; a changing global political and economic landscape, including the rise of China and India; and the increasing influence of non-state actors. Nye explores what resources now confer power, and argues that, in the information age, it might be the state (or non-state) with the best story. Joseph S. Nye, Jr. is University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Chair of the National Intelligence Council, and a Deputy Under Secretary of State. The author of many books, he is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the British Academy, and the American Academy of Diplomacy.

Updated: Bin Laden Raid Video

Live: the Obama Admin. watches the raid

A discussion of the technology behind the wireless video equipment used by Seal Team Six and a mock video, courtesy of the BBC.

The raw video stream was fed real-time to the the Obama National Security team (pictured right in the White House situation room) during the bin Laden compound raid.

With confirmation yesterday from CIA Director Leon Panetta that an official death photo of bin Laden will be released, the next question becomes whether WikiLeaks or some other outfit will be able to obtain the actual footage of the bin Laden compound raid?

In the meantime below is an ABC dramatization, and more details on the raid and the extraordinary Seal Team Six which conducted the raid here.

Above the Law? All Quiet in the U.S.-U.N. Spy Scandal

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and Hillary Clinton

Some time has passed since the disclosure that U.S. Sate department diplomats apparently engaged in illegal spying on U.N. officials. I say 'apparently' because it does not appear that any further investigation or legal charges are forthcoming.

To recap, State Department Secretaries Hillary Clinton (Democrat) and Condoleeza Rice (Republican) both instructed U.S. foreign service personnel and diplomats to obtain a wide variety of information about U.N. officials, including the following:

• DNA
• Fingerprints
• Iris scans
• Computer passwords
• Credit card numbers
• Personal encryption keys

What Precisely Constitutes 'Spying'?

While I'm not a legal expert on what constitutes 'spying' (which is banned from being performed against the U.N. under international treaty and law), the above laundry list (which once collected by State's 'diplomats' was handed over to the CIA's HUMINT department) sounds an awfully lot like 'spying' to me.

The Formers: U.S. and U.N. Secretaries Rice & Annan

Clinton and Rice signed off on orders instructing diplomats to obtain this type on information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders".

Another angle here is that the U.N. human data collection project, rather than having been carried out by CIA clandestine ops, appears to have been performed by State's foreign service officers and other diplomatic personnel. One of the purported goals of U.S. diplomats is to build relations and trust among foreign nations. What impact has the disclosure that these individuals are engaged in the gathering of the DNA samples of foreign diplomats had on this important function?

Where's the Followup?

I've been waiting to hear an announcement of an investigation, or perhaps at least rumors of an internal State department review. But so far there has not been one peep of anything like this.

Is it possible that the reason behind why no further investigation is that international treaty only outlaws spying agains the U.N. and its officials on U.N. premises? In other words, all U.S. State department spying on U.N. officials took place offsite?

Or, in a perhaps somewhat more conspiratorial vein, is the lack of follow-up due to the fact that the source of the spying information is WikiLeaks? One way to limit the credence of all WikiLeaks disclosures and move the leaks out of the headlines is to not pursue any of the potentially illegal activity disclosed by WikiLeaks. This may also serve as a disincentive to future prospective leakers.

One of the most interesting elements of the the recent WikiLeaks disclosures was the near uniform international condemnation of WikiLeaks and, as far as I could tell, almost complete lack of criticism directed at the U.S. by foreign sovereigns. Perhaps this is simply a case of the pot not wanting to call the kettle black; I have little doubt that Putin's Russia, for example, engages in similar espionage.

Walking the Rule of Law Talk

There are many unanswered questions, but the bottom line for me is this: if the U.S. wants to lay claim to the moral high ground or simply preach the importance of the rule of law to countries such as Russia, China, Iran, etc., then the U.S. needs to 'walk the talk'. 

Keeping mum about whether illegal spying on U.N. officials occurred only hurts the U.S.'s international standing and credibility. Instead there should be some type of investigation so that U.S. citizens, and the world at large, can be confident that U.S. leaders and diplomatic staff respect and uphold agreed upon laws.

On the Ethics of the Banks' War Against WikiLeaks

Should the financial industry, which manages and controls the payments system (which can be viewed as a public good), be able to bar a legal entity like Wikileaks (which has yet to be charged with any crime) from the payments system?

From today's NY Times:

Visa, MasterCard and PayPal announced in the past few weeks that they would not process any transaction intended for WikiLeaks. Earlier this month, Bank of America decided to join the group...the Federal Reserve, the banking regulator, allows this.

But a bank’s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy.

Like other companies, banks can choose whom they do business with. Refusing to open an account for some undesirable entity is seen as reasonable risk management. The government even requires banks to keep an eye out for some shady businesses — like drug dealing and money laundering — and refuse to do business with those who engage in them.

But a bank’s ability to block payments to a legal entity raises a troubling prospect. A handful of big banks could potentially bar any organization they disliked from the payments system, essentially cutting them off from the world economy. 

The fact of the matter is that banks are not like any other business. They run the payments system. That is one of the main reasons that governments protect them from failure with explicit and implicit guarantees. This makes them look not too unlike other public utilities. A telecommunications company, for example, may not refuse phone or broadband service to an organization it dislikes, arguing that it amounts to risky business.

Guest Post: Taking Stock of WikiLeaks

By George Friedman, STRATFOR

Julian Assange has declared that geopolitics will be separated into pre-“Cablegate” and post-“Cablegate” eras. That was a bold claim. However, given the intense interest that the leaks produced, it is a claim that ought to be carefully considered. Several weeks have passed since the first of the diplomatic cables were released, and it is time now to address the following questions: First, how significant were the leaks? Second, how could they have happened? Third, was their release a crime? Fourth, what were their consequences? Finally, and most important, is the WikiLeaks premise that releasing government secrets is a healthy and appropriate act a tenable position?

Let’s begin by recalling that the U.S. State Department documents constituted the third wave of leaks. The first two consisted of battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. Looking back on those as a benchmark, it is difficult to argue that they revealed information that ran counter to informed opinion. I use the term “informed opinion” deliberately. For someone who was watching Iraq and Afghanistan with some care over the previous years, the leaks might have provided interesting details but they would not have provided any startling distinction between the reality that was known and what was revealed. If, on the other hand, you weren’t paying close attention, and WikiLeaks provided your first and only view of the battlefields in any detail, you might have been surprised.